Sweden avoiding lockdown

And thus we are back around to the original point that I made when I first posted on this thread: it's a value judgement.

Societies that value safety were content to offer up liberty to the state who implemented strong coercive measures. Hobbesian.

Societies that value liberty were less content to do so, at the price of a small increase in the level of risk.

Societies who could not afford lockdowns are another conversation but do bear in mind that lockdown was a luxury for rich nations.

We now know where Irish society places value. Let's see how it reacts to the next crisis.

This whole experience has been (and will be in the future, for historians) - a fascinating study in human psychology. Whichever side of the debate you are on, I think it boils down to the classical thought of scepticism vs stoicism. Sceptics are those that argue that there is a better/more balanced way to have done this (voluntary measures, isolate the vulnerable, for example) vs the stoics (who believe that the ends justify the means and that we ought to just put up with it for the utilitarian calculus of greater good).

To my, somewhat libertarian mind, the stoic approach is a totalitarian one because it implies that human beings are simply tools of collective national policy, as opposed to individuals. This is not the norm for a liberal democracy.

That's why I said ALL restrictions, not just the initial level.

People are unable to travel to the mountains/beach alone or with only 'household' members? Without going in a shop, or local (5km) garage for fuel? News to me.

A respected journo wrote a column about Ireland during the lockdowns (https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/irelands-brutal-covid-lockdown)

One of the opening paragraphs 'Ireland in the time of Covid is a totalitarian state.'

Anyway, this is all off thread chatter.

Sweden didn't lockdown, it's world didn't end.

'What people can or should do and what they actually do is two different things.' - this is such an interesting statement and it betrays your pessimism about people and their personal responsibility. If people are told of the risk, and treated like adults - on the whole, they will behave like adults. (there will always be exceptions, of course)

'We had lockdown the world didn't end.' - for some it did in some ways, at least during, as well as after. Think about all the small businesses that now no longer exist. Or those who were unemployed, particularly in the younger generations.

'Unless you died from the virus, then it did.' - people died under lockdown with the virus as well as when we were not under lockdown (granted, numbers are different). As an older person, who knows many older (vulnerable) people - I'd have preferred to live with freedom united with risk as opposed to restrictions with safety. I'd (and they) prefer to spend my last days with people of my choosing, in areas of my choosing - not the states. What happened was that the choice was eliminated (I said this before). Who should decide that? Government officials, or the individual? I know who I think....