Read on Twitter
Let's compare Sweden & the United Kingdom: The UK had severe lock-down & Sweden didn't.
Here is GDP
Here is GDP
Sweden and the United Kingdom deaths per millions. Remember that Swedish people did not have lock-down (they used containment measures so did have measures) while the UK had lock-down.
Deaths per millions BELOW the UK now & at peak.
Deaths per millions BELOW the UK now & at peak.
The question you have to ask for all those people that championed lock-downs is:
Was it worth it? And perhaps it was if the alternative was more massive deaths.
That said, Sweden has better results in deaths/capita + economic results without lock-downs. Something to think about
Was it worth it? And perhaps it was if the alternative was more massive deaths.
That said, Sweden has better results in deaths/capita + economic results without lock-downs. Something to think about
The reason why this is raised again & again is that it is VERY VERY CLEAR that lock-down is NOT A SUSTAINABLE STRATEGY.
In fact, one may even ask if it's even the right one to start. Either way, a lot of emerging markets COPIED it. And they can't afford it. The poor devastated!
In fact, one may even ask if it's even the right one to start. Either way, a lot of emerging markets COPIED it. And they can't afford it. The poor devastated!
The Philippines had a lock-down & then it opened up & then cases spiked &locked down.
GDP collapsed and the consequence is much worse for Filipinos than Brits. Here they are again until 18 August locked down.
The gov just said it can't sustain & people'd starve if it continued.
GDP collapsed and the consequence is much worse for Filipinos than Brits. Here they are again until 18 August locked down.
The gov just said it can't sustain & people'd starve if it continued.
As in, they don't have money anymore to give to the poor so they will likely let lock-down expire on 18 August.
The question you have to ask when you champion this kind of policy is whether it is sustainable. It's not like the virus takes a break and disappears after lock-down.
The question you have to ask when you champion this kind of policy is whether it is sustainable. It's not like the virus takes a break and disappears after lock-down.
And the price of that for emerging markets is MASSIVE. As an EM Asian economist, I know lock-downs are not good. And I know in my gut & the data shows & as time goes on it shows that this is not the way.
Why? B/c they copy developed markets' lock-down w/o the same safety net.
Why? B/c they copy developed markets' lock-down w/o the same safety net.
And moreover, I know these governments just don't have the institutional space to perpetuate this.
Yet, media all over the world CHAMPIONED lock-downs & shamed Sweden.
Must Sweden be shamed if the results are better than the UK & sustainable.
Yet, media all over the world CHAMPIONED lock-downs & shamed Sweden.
Must Sweden be shamed if the results are better than the UK & sustainable.
Look at New Zealand. A rich & may I say very small & isolated country. They locked it down and the world cheered on her. I mean, it's pretty easy to do if u're in the middle of no where & the entire country actually social distance to begin with, may I say even the country.
But.
But.
Here it goes again under lock-down w/ a few cases. Unless it believes that a vaccine will come & cure it, the sustainable way for New Zealand to move forward is a model like Sweden. Because banking on locking down & banking on it sustainable locked down & vaccine is just, well...
If we learn anything about Covid-19, then it is this: we know more now than we did before & that fatality is low for the young & high for the vulnerable. We have better treatment. We also know that it's hard to eradicate.
A marathon not a sprint. Lock-down is a sprint strategy.
A marathon not a sprint. Lock-down is a sprint strategy.
