Read this earlier. This is an excellent article.

In short, Sweden accepts that health care is ALWAYS ABOUT TRADE OFFS.

And they believe that harsh regulations will naturally have positive AND negative deleterious consequences...and intelligently, take both into account.

"Fans of Sweden are right to point out that, in the first phase of the disease, the government had a light touch...But that was not a particularly successful approach. Sweden has a fatality rate of around 60 per 100,000, ten times that of Finland and Norway, which did lock down."
"Swedes’ freedom did not spare the economy, even though many deaths were among elderly people no longer working. Output in the second quarter alone shrank by 8.3%—also worse than the other Nordic countries. A high caseload is bad for the economy."
"Sweden’s new strategy for the second phase converges with Germany’s. Contrary to some claims, this is not dependent on herd immunity...entails rapid large-scale testing and contact-tracing so as to identify and suppress outbreaks early...accompanied by consistent [messaging]"
"Swedish policy is not libertarian, but that the government weighs up TRADE-OFFS of each restriction....when someone tests positive, their entire household must go into quarantine, but schoolchildren are exempt...gains are overwhelmed by the lasting harm to their education."
"Likewise, the quarantine lasts five to seven days, compared with two weeks elsewhere. The risk of spreading covid-19 in that second week is small and shrinking, but the harm to mental health of extended isolation is growing."
And what of masks? Govt experts argue evidence that masks help is weak, and that other measures work fine. In this, Sweden is out of step...If the disease charges back there, that is likely to change...its policy is based on evidence and pragmatism, not blind principle."

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.