Pet

Chill Uncategorized

I thought this, too. The problem, though, is that Norway, Sweden and Finland are not the same and lockdown was not the only factor that differed. I bet lack of facemask use in Sweden mattered a lot more. That was a crucial mistake, and it makes using that country as a natural experiment for anything nearly impossible.

Everyone uses Sweden as some sort of example: lower death rate than most of the rest of Europe, despite lack of lockdowns, so that somehow vindicates the anti-lockdown view. But, higher death rate than their near-peers, so that means lockdown is completely worthwhile and the obvious policy.

Both sides are wrong, and wrong for more than one reason.

The first reason both sides err is as I’ve stated above: you can’t directly compare “peer” countries who were not doing the same things. Or to other countries! There are just too many pertinent differences. It just makes no sense. We don’t know how to control for lack of mask use because though we know they work, we don’t know how well or even how to measure compliance. Etc.

The second reason both sides have flawed arguments is that arguments over policy are attempting to use science to determine what’s best for humans and the governments thereof. Science cannot do this. If a society wishes to accept a higher death rate for more freedom, why can they not do this? Why should they not? I’ve seen no one develop a real argument for or against this proposition because most people don’t have nearly enough grounding in ethics or philosophy to argue this either way, and the polemics I see from either side are laughably weak and pitiful.

So, Sweden: an example of not much in the end, despite everyone wanting it to be their little pet data point.