There are quite a few risk increases associated with general shutdown. [...] Another large impact is mental illness
Although there clearly is a harmful impact on mental health caused by "general shutdown", it's not clear that it's a net negative. Compared to the potential alternative (higher mortality, overwhelmed health systems, and anxiety about insufficient measures being taken) it may be a net positive.
Yes, but we're not limiting people's freedoms to avoid a negative mental health impact. That's a separate observation.
We have these restrictions to avoid collapse of our health systems. The hospitalisation rate of an uncontrolled spread of the virus far exceeds any country's healthcare capacity. The maths is inescapable.
Are you arguing that Sweden is allowing an uncontrolled spread of the virus? They've had strong voluntary measures in place all year.
In the past month they've also imposed several enforced measures to restrict the spread of the virus, including a limit on gatherings to 8 people, a bar curfew, and they've just closed secondary schools for at least a month.
"Don’t go to gyms, don’t go to libraries, don’t host dinners. Cancel." - Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven.
Despite these measures they are seeing rising hospitalisations. Further measures look inevitable.
I love how the No True Swedish Man, when the numbers are going down, is following the voluntary measures to the dot but when the numbers are going up retroactively is not.
By the way despite all the drama hospitalizations are still not at the level they were beginning of the year. But I’m sure that’s because they are following the rules again?
Comments
Although there clearly is a harmful impact on mental health caused by "general shutdown", it's not clear that it's a net negative. Compared to the potential alternative (higher mortality, overwhelmed health systems, and anxiety about insufficient measures being taken) it may be a net positive.
Don’t you think the evidence for this level of infringing on peoples basic rights should be less flimsy than ‘may be a net positive’?
Yes, but we're not limiting people's freedoms to avoid a negative mental health impact. That's a separate observation.
We have these restrictions to avoid collapse of our health systems. The hospitalisation rate of an uncontrolled spread of the virus far exceeds any country's healthcare capacity. The maths is inescapable.
Clearly the example of Sweden shows that that isn’t true.
Are you arguing that Sweden is allowing an uncontrolled spread of the virus? They've had strong voluntary measures in place all year.
In the past month they've also imposed several enforced measures to restrict the spread of the virus, including a limit on gatherings to 8 people, a bar curfew, and they've just closed secondary schools for at least a month.
"Don’t go to gyms, don’t go to libraries, don’t host dinners. Cancel." - Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven.
Despite these measures they are seeing rising hospitalisations. Further measures look inevitable.
Or if not, what are you arguing?
I love how the No True Swedish Man, when the numbers are going down, is following the voluntary measures to the dot but when the numbers are going up retroactively is not.
By the way despite all the drama hospitalizations are still not at the level they were beginning of the year. But I’m sure that’s because they are following the rules again?