Vetalia wrote:Liriena wrote:Dude, for the hundredth time: even without a lockdown, businesses would have been in dire straits anyway. Not locking down wouldn't have saved most of those businesses. What might have helped would have been the state providing financial aid to small and medium businesses while they remained on lockdown.
Sweden seems to be doing just fine, certainly doesn't have the same evisceration of its economy like the states that pursued the lockdowns...in fact things are far, far better than the catastrophic damage elsewhere and are recovering much faster, in fact their economy is growing again. A lot of simple precautions that are now in place post-lockdown could have been implemented instead and achieved much better results than shutting down arbitrarily-defined "nonessential" businesses at the whim of government.
I don't understand why people are so desperate to defend a terrible policy decision based on flawed evidence, especially when it so completely and utterly failed to actually do anything to protect those most vulnerable from death due to the coronavirus.
Sweden has a small, highly dispersed population, and still had a significantly higher number of deaths per million than its other Scandinavian counterparts. Hardly a model that applies to most other nations.