Authors Pradheep J. Shanker
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.
"Sweden is a high-trust society, where people follow the rules. & yet its approach is based on the idea that, as covid-19 is here for a long time, asking too much of people will lower compliance and thus spread the disease."
— (((Howard Forman))) (@thehowie) October 9, 2020
BEST article on Sweden.
https://t.co/wXFKYjHjtP
"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."
See...this is why I don't believe the Left really believes in science either...just their narrative.
Siegel does work for Fox, but is a Professor at NYU, FACP, etc.
But liberals are going to dismiss him...why?
Fox News Dr. Marc Siegel Will Interview Trump, Conduct 'Medical Evaluation' On-Camera Friday Night https://t.co/iqOWU7ra4b
— Mediaite (@Mediaite) October 9, 2020
If your first response is to dismiss someone because of their political or media affiliation...maybe consider that it is YOU that is the biased one.
Just saying.
Siegel may do a good job, or bad job (like Sanjay Gupta, who has done a good job in the past, but been awful of late). But he is a good physician. Just dismissing him without evidence is exactly the kind of thing Trump would do.
If we were consistent, we'd demand Biden perform tests on air too.
Of course, Dems don't want to do that. So there is a ton of hypocrisy here.
As long as that is true, it's fine.
Cuomo's standard was neither consistent nor scientific. That is a clear first amendment violation.
Conservatives are crowing over this as an own the libs moment, denying that many who support public health restrictions are people of faith. This broke long standing precedent, so don't at me with your calls for originalism etc. This is just know-nothing politics by other means. https://t.co/KLeiKlp6p7
— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) November 26, 2020
Gorsuch is SCIENTIFICALLY RIGHT HERE.
If people can't admit that, then they are allowing their biases to
Neil Gorsuch goes off on @NYGovCuomo in the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling blocking his Covid restrictions for religious services. https://t.co/HOKmgsUAKg pic.twitter.com/dcl7o5irDd
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 26, 2020
This on the other hand is 100% BS.
Not a single scientist I know supports this double standard. The best ones know that the type ofvenue is irrelevant... Only the size and # of people
Sonia Sotomayor dissents: \u201cJustices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.\u201d https://t.co/HOKmgtcc8Q
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 26, 2020
In short, it is the LEFT here using religious bias to promote an antiscientific standard and allowing the State to violate Rights.
The Liberals and CJJR should be ashamed.
Another good thread here.
A consistent standard would have passed constitutional muster.
Last night, SCOTUS issued injunctive relief to houses of worship challenging NYC\u2019s COVID-19 restrictions, the first time it has granted such relief during the pandemic. I have mixed views about the decision and early reactions to it.
— John Inazu (@JohnInazu) November 26, 2020