Conventional in what sense? They did hard lockdown which I believe has never been tried before, outside of Mexico, once, for a few days. This type of long term shutdown is entirely new.
None of the scientific advisors to the various democratic governments are complete idiots
Given their behaviour a lot of people have concluded otherwise.
Sweden's approach is valid. Italy's approach is valid.
Nobody is arguing about validity, which is undefined here and thus meaningless anyway, but cost and proportionality.
The stated justification for lockdowns was to avoid overflowing hospitals. Sweden avoided this despite taking far less harsh measures than Italy. This automatically makes Sweden's approach better than Italy's (or "more valid" if you like).
In Belarus they locked down less than Sweden, and still didn't see hospital overflow. Presumably that means Belarus is even less wrong than Sweden!
Italy’s starting point was that they were in the midst of getting overwhelmed (and were already over capacity in some regions) when they executed their shutdown.
Sweden had a better starting point and more time and room to maneuver.
Conventional in what sense? They did hard lockdown which I believe has never been tried before, outside of Mexico, once, for a few days. This type of long term shutdown is entirely new.
None of the scientific advisors to the various democratic governments are complete idiots
Given their behaviour a lot of people have concluded otherwise.
Sweden's approach is valid. Italy's approach is valid.
Nobody is arguing about validity, which is undefined here and thus meaningless anyway, but cost and proportionality.
The stated justification for lockdowns was to avoid overflowing hospitals. Sweden avoided this despite taking far less harsh measures than Italy. This automatically makes Sweden's approach better than Italy's (or "more valid" if you like).
In Belarus they locked down less than Sweden, and still didn't see hospital overflow. Presumably that means Belarus is even less wrong than Sweden!