[Skybird]

Sweden base son a huge poandemic exercise and study they did in 2010 und supervision of their current top state pandemist. There they rated the pandemy not just on grounds of the damage it does, but assumed collaterla death rates casued by fighting it, and under health and mentla health indices.


I do not find that study, or what is reprted about iut, convinsingk, but thats what they seem to have chosen as theoir basis for today'S action.


Standardised to comaoring deifntion s of what detahs are caused by Covid 19, and standardised against population (Germany has over eight times more people, for example), their Covid-1q9 caused death rate two days ago was 3 times higher than that of Denmark or Norway, and 3.8 times higher than that of Germany.



They need good compensation effects to justfiy this.



Now compare that with New Zealand. They had or still have a totla lockdown, stricter than almost anywherre else. They have a currently overwhelming success over the virus - but with extreme costs for the economy and civil society, it seems.


Its a moral dilemma, very difficult to weigh. Its veryx difficult to discmrinate between loss in life directly due to the vorus and its health conditions, and the collateral loss of live from fighting the virus.


To allow loss of mlife growing to save the eocnoimy means to preoclaim the right that the state shall decide to let parts of the populatiion die due ti denying them direct help in order of interests of the majority.


Very dangerous. How many lives are fine to sacrifice to save economic interests? How many lives are fine to destroy collaterally due to saving virus patients?


Very dangerous precedences can be created from this.


Very difficult to morally navigate these waters.