I'm totally for taxing the billionaires. Inherited wealth is obscene.
I don't know that Sweden's vulnerable (as opposed to the population in general) have been hit particularly hard compared to anywhere else. haven't seen any data either way.
Their death toll per million looks high now, but there's a chance that they may come out looking better than everyone else a year from now. It may be (and we really don't know at this point) that vulnerable people in countries with tight lockdowns may start to emerge at a specific time, only to be hit with a new wave of infections, whereas Sweden's vulnerable may be better protected in the long term.
We really don't have enough data to know what the long term results will be. It may be that some countries are trading live saved now for lives lost later, or it may be the other way round. Or maybe they can save now and save later.
One also has to remember the other vulnerable group - the poor. Every day of lockdown is lost income to people on low wages who can't work. (Paying them 80% was the best thing our government did, not all countries'poor are so fortunate) Loss of income correlates directly with worse health outcomes, increased suicide, increased debt, poor housing, etc.
What's the trade off in poverty and future deaths from poverty related illnesses against lives saved now (of which around 50% are people who would have died in the next few months in any case)?
There are no easy answers in this pandemic, but an awful lot of questions.
no subject
I don't know that Sweden's vulnerable (as opposed to the population in general) have been hit particularly hard compared to anywhere else. haven't seen any data either way.
Their death toll per million looks high now, but there's a chance that they may come out looking better than everyone else a year from now. It may be (and we really don't know at this point) that vulnerable people in countries with tight lockdowns may start to emerge at a specific time, only to be hit with a new wave of infections, whereas Sweden's vulnerable may be better protected in the long term.
We really don't have enough data to know what the long term results will be. It may be that some countries are trading live saved now for lives lost later, or it may be the other way round. Or maybe they can save now and save later.
One also has to remember the other vulnerable group - the poor. Every day of lockdown is lost income to people on low wages who can't work. (Paying them 80% was the best thing our government did, not all countries'poor are so fortunate) Loss of income correlates directly with worse health outcomes, increased suicide, increased debt, poor housing, etc.
What's the trade off in poverty and future deaths from poverty related illnesses against lives saved now (of which around 50% are people who would have died in the next few months in any case)?
There are no easy answers in this pandemic, but an awful lot of questions.