By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Conina on 27 April 2020
Edit Thread
Phoenix20 said:

Sweden approach makes the most logical sense and is sustainable.
The only area they messed up was not locking away old people
Most of the death tallies have been old people and cocooning the old people and limiting their visits may be the best approach.
Why not just lock down the old people and business as usual for the young fit healthy people?

We'll have to see if it is sustainable in the next months.

Also Sweden is "playing on easy mode" with a population density of just 60 people per square mile. A virus can spread much better in countries with a high population density and "social distancing" should be easier in countries with a low population density.

For comparison some other European countries:

  • Germany: 603 people per square mile
  • France: 319 people per square mile
  • United Kingdom: 710 people per square mile
  • Italy: 518 people per square mile
  • Spain: 241 people per square mile
  • Netherlands: 1085 people per square mile
  • Belgium: 976 people per square mile
  • Austria: 275 people per square mile
  • Switzerland: 539 people per square mile

So even if Sweden's approach should work for them, that recipe could end in desaster in a different country with a much higher population density.