If you want to make the argument that making restrictions illegal on paper decreases compliance, that's fine, though I very much doubt it. Comparisons across very different countries won't make the case.

But when people talk about whether lockdowns are good or bad they tend to be assuming compliance and considering the effects of that compliance, so I think your definition sows confusion.

I’m not making a case. I’m making a distinction which you seem to be saying I should not be.

Compliance rate is a very commonly considered variable in evidence based medicine - there is nothing confusing about considering it.

Compliance very much varies between intervention types and cultures. Also not remotely controversial.

Assuming compliance is almost always an error in considering the outcomes of medical interventions.

If we are going to reason about what kinds of coronavirus interventions are effective, we must consider compliance.

Whether something is mandated by law or not is definitely a variable in determining compliance.

If it were not, and as you claim, Swedes have been complying this whole time, why would Sweden have started using force of law recently?

Presumably they think it will increase compliance.

There are many reports of high compliance. E.g. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-coronavirus-lessons/ "93 percent of the population say they are following social-distancing recommendations." Maybe compliance has waned since. I don't know.

Here's a typical narrative that illustrates why we should be more careful about the word "lockdown":

Alex: "Sweden has successfully managed COVID19 without a lockdown."

Bob: "Great, so we should just go and live our normal lives then."

Alex: "Actually no. We need to cut off most social contact, ban visitors to rest homes, and work from home when possible."

Bob: "Er, that sounds like a lockdown to me!"

Alex: "WELL ACTUALLY it's not a lockdown as long as the government doesn't assert the legal authority to enforce these restrictions."

Bob: "... but the effects on health, well-being and the economy will be the same as a lockdown?"

Alex: "If everyone complies, which we expect them to, then yes, but the important thing is that we don't call it a lockdown."

Here's a typical narrative that illustrates why we should be more careful about the word "lockdown":

Alex: "Sweden has successfully managed COVID19 without a lockdown."

Bob: "How did they manage that?"

Alex: "They gave their citizens a bunch of guidance on how to reduce the spread of the disease, and asked them to be responsible and most Swedes complied."

Bob: "Why can’t we do that?"

Alex: "Good question - something to do with our government or our culture?"

Bob: "Seems like our government might have burned less goodwill if it had used Sweden’s approach and we’d be in better shape going into this second wave.”

Alex: “Yeah, maybe you are right.”

Actually, I agree with you in that compliance is far more important than whether a lockdown is legally enforced or not.

That means defining lockdown as "government restrictions legally enforced" doesn't make sense. Defining it as "government restrictions widely complied with" would make a lot more sense. And by that definition, Sweden has apparently had a lockdown.

I don’t see why it ‘doesn’t make sense’.

It’s a clear distinction.

That why many people are saying ‘Sweden didn’t have a lockdown’.

What they mean is ‘Sweden didn’t have a legally mandated set of restrictions’.

This is just a true statement.

The fact that the Swedish government made recommendations that Swedes followed without using force of law is interesting, and informative.

> What they mean is ‘Sweden didn’t have a legally mandated set of restrictions’.

True for some people, not for others. I have talked to many people who have repeated "Sweden didn't have a lockdown" and think that means Swedes didn't change their behaviour significantly. They are surprised, even disbelieving, when I point out the quite significant restrictions most Swedes have complied with. These people were misled by news reports using the term "lockdown" the way you do.

Whether or not defining the term "lockdown" differently is the solution, there needs to be some improvement in the way we write about this.

Notably, elsewhere in the thread ‘Sporktacular’ asserts that Sweden really didn’t even have good compliance:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25119518

Which would imply no lockdown by any definition.

It's not good faith to know exactly what someone is talking about, but insist that you would prefer that the word they used to express it mean a different thing, and that all discussion should end until they invent another word.

"A key point about Sweden is it appears they had a lot of people behaving responsibly despite not using the force of law."

Mandated lockdowns are precisely for the people who don't voluntarily behave responsibly. And damn Sweden has a lot of them too.

Worse, those in charge used their authority to mandate NOT using masks: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surr...

https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/

Swedes failed each other, and the failure to employ legal authority effectively meant their government did too. And their economy is no better for it https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...

Sounds like you are saying they didn’t have a lockdown but should have had.

It’s worth pointing out that roca’s comment contradicts you about Sweden’s compliance rate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118200

I certainly am, and think roca's claims aren't supported by the sources I provided.

My reply was partly because of the sentence "The fact that the Swedish government made recommendations that Swedes followed without using force of law is interesting, and informative." However if you weren't claiming that Swedes followed recommendations and meant it as a conditional then I misdirected my reply.

Your three sources in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25119518 do not seem to mention compliance at all. They are all arguing that the restrictions requested by the Swedish government were too weak, which I absolutely agree with.

Can you quote sources saying compliance with the government's requests was low? Because I see, for example, https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-coronavirus-lessons/:

> 93 percent of the population say they are following social-distancing recommendations.

https://www.government.se/articles/2020/06/social-distancing...:

> Swedes are largely following the advice and recommendations issued by the Public Health Agency of Sweden.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53498133:

> a survey released this week by Sweden's Civil Contingencies Agency suggests 87% of the population are continuing to follow social distancing recommendations to the same extent as they were one or two weeks earlier, up from 82% a month ago.

[It does also say "there have been reports of large gatherings and mingling in some tourist hotspots since domestic travel restrictions were relaxed last month" but that is anecdotal.]

Reports like these formed my view that compliance with the (inadequate!!!) Swedish government restrictions has been high (though I have also read reports of decreasing compliance lately, consistent with trends in other countries). Perhaps these reports were never accurate but I'd want to see sources saying so.

That makes sense. I could have been clearer and qualified my statement with “If as Roca claims”, rather than “The fact that”.

I was replying to Roca and just taking their facts at face value.