How would we determine if a government lock-down works better than informed citizens making their own judgments?
The world’s 200+ countries and territories are pursuing a wide range of policies, and a great challenge in evaluating the results will be in making apples-to-apples comparisons that isolate important variables. Comparing, say, India to New Zealand or Nepal to Mexico is initially too apples-to-oranges.
So: a rough-draft start by comparing geographically and culturally similar countries that have pursued different policies:
1. Comparing Denmark and Sweden: Both northern European and neighbors.
Sweden has twice the population of Denmark: About 10 million compared to 5 million.
Sweden has 1.5 times as many cases as Denmark: About 6400 compared to 4100.
Sweden has 1.3 times the death rate as Denmark: About 37 per million compared to 28.
Denmark has pursued a stronger lock-down while Sweden has pursued a more laissez-faire approach.
2. Comparing Belarus and Ukraine: Both eastern European and neighbors.
Ukraine has 4.5 times the population of Belarus: About 44 million compared to 9.5 million.
Ukraine has almost 3 times as many cases as Belarus: About 1200 compared to 440.
Ukraine has 1.75 times the death rate as Belarus: About .7 per million compared to .4.
Ukraine has pursued a stronger lock-down while Belarus has pursued a more laissez-faire approach.
Others to compare along these lines?
Data source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries.
I don’t see much which controls for a) culture, b) testing, and c) days till first case. These things must also be accounted for in the final draft.
It’s too rough a comparison, the virus doesn’t spread per country so the number of cases and deaths will depend on where the virus landed in the country and what was going on in that area when it did. Madrid had a feminist march just before lockdown and is now overrun with cases. Most of France’s initial spread comes from a large religious gathering in North East of France.
Some areas are just too densely populated (Paris, NYC, London). The effects of a lockdown will be more apparent in dense areas. Where I live in France the lockdown doesn’t need to be as strong as it currently is, you just need to avoid contact with other people. It is vital in the more affected areas however. And note that despite a lockdown being in effect, many companies that could continue working have stopped anyway so it’s a bit of both citizens judgement and government lockdown driving decisions.
It’s still very early, I would expect Sweden to get hit much harder when people think the danger went away.
Interesting. I have been comparing different countries with a different perspective. That is how effective their healthcare systems have responded to the pandemic. My focus has been mainly on Italy and Spain — with very socialistic healthcare — and Switzerland, where government interference in healthcare is (arguably) even less than the USA. Switzerland’s cases per million population has been very high like its neighbor Italy and Spain, but deaths/cases has been far lower. Spain’s ratio is almost 3 times as much and Italy’s almost 4 times as much.
In Spanish flu Minneapolis was more strict on lockdown than St Paul illness deaths and recovery were all better in Minneapolis. They had no tests or PPE. Like us
The CDC revised their 2017 flu numbers down by nearly 30% just this year! A modeling group out of the UW was off on their predictions for the state by 100% over the course of 10 days. The profession should be retreating to some far off island to discuss their ineptitude yet they are more emboldened than ever to let the world know what is safe.