Denmark and Sweden: An apples to apples comparison

[aygart]

Well...this is interesting

Exactly my point.

[Lurker]

We bounced back from the great depression but how many starved to death? I am not equating the two but showing economics does cause death.
The economics of this will directly cause lives to be lost. We need experts to give us their predictions on this also.
Does one life lost equal 10 lives ruined, 100 or 1000? Not a question I really want to think about or could even answer.

Does one life lost only equal one life lost? I know you look at the charity thread, and I know you cry when you read the stories. How many more orphans can we handle? How many teachers can we lose? How many community leaders, pillars of charity, wisdom, advocacy, and business can we lose? How do we quantify the lives ruined? It's not a question you want to think about or answer, and neither do I. I definitely don't want some math geek to come up with an equation in his bunker.

This is what I believe. A life ruined can be repaired, but a life lost is lost forever. Judaism teaches that life is paramount, superseding everything in importance short of G-d and His Glory Himself. That is how I would like to approach this crises. Prioritize life today, and work towards solving the issues we know we'll face in the future.

[S209]

Well...this is interesting

Very interesting. I didn’t look into that and it seems counterintuitive at first glance but the point remains that pointing at vague “mental health deaths” and “suicide rates” isn’t equivalent to looking at actual deaths before our eyes. Real, tangible people who are no more. And very statistically significant.

Besides, there would be a terrible unquantifiable economic and mental toll should we allow this pandemic to murder the millions of people it would unchecked anyway. May as well keep them alive and see what the consequences are then.

[aygart]

Very interesting. I didn’t look into that and it seems counterintuitive at first glance but the point remains that pointing at vague “mental health deaths” and “suicide rates” isn’t equivalent to looking at actual deaths before our eyes. Real, tangible people who are no more. And very statistically significant.

Besides, there would be a terrible unquantifiable economic and mental toll should we allow this pandemic to murder the millions of people it would unchecked anyway. May as well keep them alive and see what the consequences are then.

Even those did not go up by tremendous amounts.

[Yard sale]

Correct, there are terrible economic consequences to both millions getting sick and dying, and to millions being locked down.

The main difference is real, tangible deaths in front of us. (Relatively) very few people will actually starve to death or commit suicide as a direct result of the economic downturn. Those who think otherwise should look into total deaths by suicide, and increases corresponding to economic disasters.

Starve to death no. But suicide yes. Studies show that suicide rates shot up during the Great Depression resulting 23,000 deaths in the US. Studies show similar though less pronounced trends during smaller downturn. Other causes of death did not jump dramatically during the Great Depression.

[avromie7]

I was all for a national shutdown. The issue now is this drip drip drip.
The problem also is we see no real deaths from a national shutdown so far. What if the experts started predicting how many lives will be lost for each month of a shutdown. How about how many lives will be ruined and so on? Would that change some minds? 

Before or after is not really important, the point is every day the country is shutdown has serious repercussions and those who are saying keep it a little longer "just to be safe" have a terrible attitude.

Correct, there are terrible economic consequences to both millions getting sick and dying, and to millions being locked down.

The main difference is real, tangible deaths in front of us. (Relatively) very few people will actually starve to death or commit suicide as a direct result of the economic downturn. Those who think otherwise should look into total deaths by suicide, and increases corresponding to economic disasters.

What about people who end up with serious long term mental health issues due to being locked inside for 6 months? That's a very real situation and it should not be taken lightly.

[aygart]

Does one life lost only equal one life lost? I know you look at the charity thread, and I know you cry when you read the stories. How many more orphans can we handle? How many teachers can we lose? How many community leaders, pillars of charity, wisdom, advocacy, and business can we lose? How do we quantify the lives ruined? It's not a question you want to think about or answer, and neither do I. I definitely don't want some math geek to come up with an equation in his bunker.

This is what I believe. A life ruined can be repaired, but a life lost is lost forever. Judaism teaches that life is paramount, superseding everything in importance short of G-d and His Glory Himself. That is how I would like to approach this crises. Prioritize life today, and work towards solving the issues we know we'll face in the future.

Exactly. I know of a few hundred children with lives "ruined" (I don't like that term) by them have lost parents.

[Dan]

Exactly. I know of a few hundred children with lives "ruined" (I don't like that term) by them have lost parents.

I just wonder how many divorces we might see come out of this.
High anxiety and spouses being around each other all day isn't a great combo.

[S209]

Before or after is not really important, the point is every day the country is shutdown has serious repercussions and those who are saying keep it a little longer "just to be safe" have a terrible attitude.
 What about people who end up with serious long term mental health issues due to being locked inside for 6 months? That's a very real situation and it should not be taken lightly.

I was answering exactly your point. Skeptics of lockdowns tend to point out “mental health” issues as a reason to sacrifice people's lives. First, you would need to prove a quantifiable significant number that we can look at. Second, as @Lurker said and the point I was trying to make, you can’t discount the “mental health” issues of losing a parent, teacher, friend, relative.. they are probably significantly worse.

[aygart]

I just wonder how many divorces we might see come out of this.
High anxiety and spouses being around each other all day isn't a great combo.

Just overheard someone saying, after 1 week home with my wife, I'm ready to die...

WOW I love being home with my wife.

מצא או מוצא

[zh cohen]

@Lurker , the goal of herd immunity is to protect those who are not immune.

With vaccines, the healthy accept the (tiny) risks associated with the vaccine in order to protect those for whom the risk is higher, and can therefore not be immunized (such as newborns or the immunocompromised).

Those advocating for herd immunity are saying that we should do the same thing (with those who are high risk isolating until enough of those that are lower risk have immunity so that the virus can't spread).

[CountValentine]

High anxiety and spouses being around each other all day isn't a great combo.

I guess I am the exception to the rule.

[Ergel]

I guess I am the exception to the rule.

Big difference what age kids you have which impacts the level of stress in the house

[avromie7]

I was answering exactly your point. Skeptics of lockdowns tend to point out “mental health” issues as a reason to sacrifice people's lives. First, you would need to prove a quantifiable significant number that we can look at. Second, as @Lurker said and the point I was trying to make, you can’t discount the “mental health” issues of losing a parent, teacher, friend, relative.. they are probably significantly worse.

1) The fact that you can't quantify them doesn't change the fact that they exist
2) Who said you have a right to tell people to do something that will adversely affect their mental health to save someone else's mental health or even someone else's life?

[Lurker]

@Lurker , the goal of herd immunity is to protect those who are not immune.

With vaccines, the healthy accept the (tiny) risks associated with the vaccine in order to protect those for whom the risk is higher, and can therefore not be immunized (such as newborns or the immunocompromised).

Those advocating for herd immunity are saying that we should do the same thing (with those who are high risk isolating until enough of those that are lower risk have immunity so that the virus can't spread).

And my point is we don't know who is immune or what the risks are for herd immunity to be considered at this point. Vaccines have a somewhat quantifiable risk factor, and we have tests to help determine who is high risk. Those don't exist here. How many Charidy/Chesed campaigns start with, "S/he was in perfect health, and now 10 yesomim need our help?"

[S209]

1) The fact that you can't quantify them doesn't change the fact that they exist
2) Who said you have a right to tell people to do something that will adversely affect their mental health to save someone else's mental health or even someone else's life?

1) They may or may not. Very realistically may not. So what’s the basis for the argument? Because it’s more enjoyable?

2) We can and will tell people to do something that may have negative effects on their mental health to measurably save someone else’s life. We do it all the time. Like, always.

Every single law enacted ever can be argued that it “adversely affects someone’s mental health”. My point is, you don’t even know that there *will* be more mental health issues from lockdown than from just having the virus, and I can make a coherent argument against it, but we DO know that more people will die (and the person being told to lock down is one of those at risk too. Plus their family. Who’s lives they certainly don’t have a right to risk).

Now, we can fight about seatbelts and assisted euthanasia and abortion and all sorts of libertarian beliefs if you want, but don’t get all indignant if we force people to *perhaps* sacrifice some comforts/mental health to *definitely* save many lives. Sorry.

[CountValentine]

So do we should not open things back up until more is known? If so how long would you wait?

[zh cohen]

Regarding the OP, it's not an apples to apples comparison until you have the whole picture. The two approaches are based on a preference for higher intensity for a shorter time (Sweden) or a lower peak but extended over a longer period (Denmark). As long as the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, you can't say the Swedish model was the wrong approach.

[PlatinumGuy]

An interesting question would be the long term impacts on the economy.

I am willing to bet Sweden will end up being hit harder, which disproves the entire argument against lockdown in the first place.

[S209]

An interesting question would be the long term impacts on the economy.

I am willing to bet Sweden will end up being hit harder, which disproves the entire argument against lockdown in the first place.

Exactly. That wouldn’t shock me at all. This fact is exactly why we don’t risk real lives for a maybe.

So do we should not open things back up until more is known? If so how long would you wait?

I answered this a couple of times upthread. When we know enough and are prepared enough to let people out without risking a large outbreak, and the capability to shut it down when it does start.