Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by guygurari 2211 days ago
If Sweden has a significantly higher percentage of the population infected (as they claim) then it doesn’t make sense to compare death rates at this point, because it may be that these other countries will reach the same numbers (infection rate and death rate) later. This is a likely outcome because Sweden’s healthcare system has not been overwhelmed, so it’s not obvious that their policies will lead to excess deaths in the long run. The thing to compare is the final death toll (as well as economic damage), and we don’t know that yet.
4 comments

Why do you think Norway will eventually approach the same number of infections as Sweden? Norway only has a few hundred active cases left, and is testing 2 times as much than Sweden. They are on their way to normal life in a few weeks. If new outbreaks occur, they are well prepared to isolate them.
Just got a snap from a friend of mine. First pub beer of the season yesterday. 15 days with no new cases in my hometown. City of 300,000, West Norway.

Testing capacity of >1000 per week locally. No way it can sneak up on us without a large external influx.

Tourism is dead, music festivals are off and the oil industry is in a shambles, but otherwise things are close to normal.

Plenty of routines to limit contagion, lots of care and social distancing, but life goes on with no disease for now.

> infection rate and death rate later.

The most successful countries have already managed to reduce their infection rate to almost zero.

You can still compare it to countries like Vietnam, that, at 10 times the population, with a direct border to China and being the first country in they world to have the virus spread outside China, has managed to keep the infection to only ~400 of their citizens, with no deaths at all.
This is a general observation: you shouldn’t judge pandemic policy over the short term.
Yes, ignore the bodies piling up in morgues. Rational people know that in ten years time it won't really matter.