Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Sweden's No-Lockdown Strategy: Did it Work to Defeat COVID? Is This the Way Forward?- TLDR News" video.

@matthewthiesen6098 I agree mostly on what you say. However, at the peak of the crisis, here in France, hospitals were overloaded. Some people (how many? Nobody knows) died because there were no way to take care of them. Imagine how disastrous it would have been if TV news shown people dying in corridors or gymnasiums because of a lack of hospital beds? Showing crying exhausted and discouraged nurses? Families shouting and looking for explanations, If lockdown had not been enforced? So i would not have like to be the one who had to explain that, in the long term, it was the right thing to do .
5
@Leonard DeVir this is also debatable. Sweden had 3 times more death than a comparable country, Switzerland. Switzerland is a country with comparable population, well connected with its neightbours in the middle of Europe, with a high number of immigrants and foreign workers. I understand that this will only be comparable at the end of the Covid epidemic, and many factors differ, but so far, Sweden figures look worst.
3
@zulupox Sweden has one of the worst figures in Europe. FEW countries did worst. MOST countries did better. Maybe it is not because of the lockdown, but I see no obvious reason to the bad figures apart of that. I did not choose random countries: Switzerland is about the same population, it is also in Europe, and there are many, if not more foreign workers there. There are differences, of course, no country is exactly the same, but there are comparable. I already mentioned that it would have been a disaster in my country, France, if lockdown was not enforced. You said that everything is now fixed. I hope you are right.
3
@zulupox it is not an argument from incredulity. It is simply that the main difference i see between Switzerland and Sweden is the lockdown. I am not a specialist. I may be wrong. Anyway, the fact is that Sweden has very bad figures. 12th (or even 14th) on 193 countries, 4th in the EU 27. It looks bad and does little to convince me it was the way to go. And with less than 1 death per million per day, France has something like 100 days to go before it reaches Sweden death per million rate.
2
@zulupox what is your point? Switzerland and Sweden are of similar size and population. Switzerland : 207.4 death per million Sweden : 571.7 deaths per million It looks worst, isn't it? Even France, while a larger country, is better, with 472,7 deaths per million Fact is that Sweden has one of the highest rates in Europe.
1
@zulupox once again, you may be right! Your explanation has some flaws, however. People were staying in the Alps, precisely where... Switzerland is! A country that was not hit as badly as Sweden, despite it having a border with Italy. I have personnally few doubts that the variety of infection rates we have in the different countries is also due, among other causes, to the reation of local authorities and the precautions taken. Nothing obvious shows why Sweden was so badly hit, except for the fact that it did not enforce a lockdown. Some rates can be explained by geography, travels, people concentrations, sure. But, for Sweden, nothing special. Basic logic is that disease spreading rate is based on simple factors. One of them, the most obvious, is the number of people that one sick person can meet in a day. Lockdown is an obvious answer, and a flawless one: if you meet nobody, you cannot be infected or spread the disease. Of course, other ways may work as well, like social distancing, and masks, and syou name it. Whatever, lockdown, being radical, must have had some effect and reflect in the resulting rates somehow. and Sweden having not enforce lockdown and having bad results, it is likely that there is a connection between the two. It may not be the case, or it may be insignificant, but, at first glance, it is likely, as, again, there was nothing special with Sweden compared to other comparable countries.
1