[spacemanmatt]

It's like the trolley problem, but Sweden pulled the lever that sends the trolley over lots of people rather than just a few.

I think you used the right ethical analysis tool, but I think you got the ethical analysis wrong.

[natch]

Sweden’s position is that the trolley in this set of choices is eventually going to roll over roughly the same number of people no matter which lever is pulled. The timing varies in different scenarios, not the total numbers.

It just appears that the numbers are worse for them because the scenario hasn’t fully played out yet in all countries, and they chose the lever that has them taking their hits early. Comparisons with other countries aren’t appropriate, they would say, until all trolleys have stopped rolling.

And they are choosing their strategy deliberately, because they think there are various benefits (including epidemiological ones) of this path.

>rather than just a few

No. It looks like just a few. But that’s a false conclusion, taken only because we are still in the early stages. Other countries will catch up to their numbers.

[matthewdgreen]

> Other countries will catch up to their numbers.

The fatality rate seems to be declining globally, in part due to improved treatment. Even if that was the only objection to your claim, it would be a serious objection. In addition to that, we're also rapidly learning lessons about how to protect vulnerable patients in care homes (part of the "learning" here is just manufacturing enough PPE to do the job). Many of the elderly patients who died in Sweden's first wave might have been saved if they'd delayed the infections enough to apply what we've learned.

[new2628]

By this logic any great loss can be rationalized as the prelude to some even greater win.

At the moment the best we have are the current numbers. By that measure, Sweden looks terrible.

Comparisons between counties of similar population are quite informative: https://i.imgur.com/do9Zbvn.png

[jimmyswimmy]

I think that's not quite correct. Sweden didn't pull any lever at all. They advised their citizens but left them individually free to choose their own path, or pull their own lever. I would argue that's a different ethical choice than what most other countries made.

[cowbellemoo]

> Sweden didn't pull any lever at all

Your analysis of their passivity does not acknowledge the assumptions underlying an individualist strategy. The lever Sweden pulled was permitting the atomization of a collective public health problem.

[mikem170]

>The lever Sweden pulled was permitting the atomization of a collective public health problem.

Did that happen? I didn't hear that their health system broke under the load.

To the contrary, everyone else atomized their economies and still had the virus go through their populations.

Per-capita Sweden did about the same as France, and better than Italy, UK, and Spain.

[alkonaut]

> over lots of people rather than just a few.

This is too soon to say

- We don't know whether different actions would have produced a very different outcome (I don't beleive a Norwegain strategy would have yielded significantly better outcome, for example).

- More importantly it's too soon to say given we don't have the effects of public health on other mitigations which come much later (e.g. GDP for healthcare spending etc). We also aren't even nearly through the pandemic. More outbreaks are likely, and we don't know how much effect the places with 10%, 20% or 30% immunity will have compared to places with places that have a much lower immunity.

[matz1]

There is no wrong answer in the trolley problem, ethics are subjective.