When they shut down all the small businesses and just left the big box stores open, they ended up concentrating all the shoppers together in a few big centralized locations, turning them into daily super-spreader events.
Now they're imposing curfews, as if that will somehow limit people's exposure to each other by keeping them at home more I guess?
Well here's the thing: Bars and restaurants are already closed. The only thing people are going out at night for is logistical activities like shopping - things they have to do every day regardless of curfews.
So all a curfew will accomplish is to shorten the available hours people have to carry out those logistical activities (like shopping), which will concentrate everyone into the stores during the remaining hours, which will increase social contact/exposure, not reduce it.
So like the small business shutdowns, this measure can only make things worse.
I don't believe for one second that there's any modeling that pointed to this being a good idea, because it defies logic on the face of it. At this point it's painfully obvious that governments are just taking drastic actions so they can be seen to be "doing something". And worse, there's no exit strategy. Nothing they're doing is working. None of these measures will bring an end to the pandemic (indeed they'll only make it worse), so where's the light at the end of the tunnel here? Is there one? Or is this the "new normal"?
Oh and they still don't know if the vaccines work on the new strains yet BTW.
No, it doesn't. You're free to prove me wrong by showing just ounce of evidence that hospitals in Sweden postpone necessary cancer treatments because of the flu.
You linked something from December 14th. The law for lockdowns was passed this a day ago. The only person here who has to do some basic fucking research is you, you absolute retard.
Just skip over the case and daily deaths then you fucking space slice.
Hospitals are slammed during any bad flu season because capacity is planned for the average year.
Sweden has made it this far with minimal restrictions.
Not even in the top 10 for deaths per capita
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
Belgium, Italy, Spain, UK all above them. All have had multiple extremely restrictive lock downs.
Lockdowns are ineffective.
New Zealand, Australia, Norway, France, Denmark, Israel, Spain, Ireland, Canada all had lockdowns and have a way lower death rate than Sweden according to your link. Seems like lockdowns work. Same logic.
And lockdowns are coming for Sweden, otherwise they wouldn't have to pass a law to make them legal. November and December were the deadliest months in Sweden's history since the Spanish Flu.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-sweden-deadliest-november-spanish-flu.html
Muh, spanish flu!!! Fuck off please. Did you even read the article you posted? Swedens poptulation is more then double now compared to 1918. Absolute death numbers aren't relevant unless framed against the total population.
It doesn't matter that others locked down.
Sweden, Belarus, large parts of Africa, Florida, North & South Dakota, Georgia.
They disprove the need for absolute lockdowns.
All have proved you can do, at the very least, no worse then others with no harsh lockdowns.
Spain is still higher per capita deaths then Sweden.
But sure go ahead advocate for locking people in their homes for months, destroying any semblance of personal responsibility, economic prosperity, and handing over absolute power to government officials.
All to save people from a virus where the average age of death is greater then regular life expectancy.
Hope that boot leather tastes good.