That's really stupid to point out. There is lots of new guidance out there and takes time for these new rules to become daily habits. Even doctors would tell you they're still finding it difficult to follow all the rules all the time, that doesn't mean they're not trying or they're breaking the rules on purpose.

Then lets look at Stockholm numbers, as a exsample:

When other countries talk about "dark numbers" (infection you dont know about) its usually by around a factor of 10 or so.

In stockholm sweden claims it has ~5400 confirmed cases of coronavirus (out of the 13,000+).

This is a area with a population of 975,000+.
If ~10% of your population there, really had the virus, the confirmed cases numbers would be much much higher than just the ~5400 reported now.

5%-10% of 975k = ~49,000 to ~97,500 infected.

Going by the factor of 10, rule, Stockhold might actually have around 5% there infected with the virus.

That still means infection needs to spread atleast 10 times as much as it currently has (more other places in sweden).

Stockholm has like 820 deaths to coronavirus (probably slightly higher, since no country has 100% right numbers).
Stockholm has ~440 in the ICU, and probably half of these people will die to it.

Lets say thats the "base" rate now, around 1000 deaths.

To reach 50% infected numbers, that means your 5% rate -> 50% which is a factor of 10.
Those 1000 deaths -> 10,000 deaths in stockholm before 50% rate is hit.

Stockholm is around 1/10th of sweden (975k out of 10,3m).
If the same numbers play out in the rest of sweden (and why wouldnt it, if your allowing herd immunity to reach 50%+).

10,000 x 10 = 100,000+ deaths.

Also with 50% herd immunity your only "half" safe.
Thats when infection start to drop.

This means deaths will keep on going up, for abit even after 50% rate is reached.

Sweden is basically allowing 100k+ people to die, by chooseing this methode, that it might have saved the vast majority off.

Is it just me or do the US numbers feel really low? Considering the late response and the general defiance by some states it feels like the numbers should be double. Of course the US has a big advantage of being fairly stretched out but it still feels way too low.

I guess we can only wait for the year end statistic of total deaths and compare it to the previous year.

The lockdown is stupid for *most* places(This obviously implies exceptions), so yeah, he is not fucking anything.

Plus, he is not influencing people much, this is comming from them.Do you expect epople are happy about being unemployed, or are more afraid of this *weak* virus than starving or being homeless?

The economy does indeed need to be opened up slowly in some states especially those that really don't have much cases or deaths which there are a lot of.

However, the protests in Michigan are straight up idiotic. I realize they are one of the most badly affected states economically but they are also the biggest hot spot in the country after the New York metro, and yes the death toll is simply too high to justify reopening the economy there regardless of how many people are out of work.

People not starving or being homeless without a job is usually handled by a robust social safety net. Are you telling me the US doesn't have one of those?

Feels like a country where people have to fear for their life if they don't have a job has bigger problems than a virus.

People are idiotic for protesting that this lockdown are taking away their sustance and their jobs?That's the question you should be making.

Health and economy are intrensectly linked.You can't work if you are ill, but you can't have health if you are poor.That's what people can't realize, or rather are strting to realize.This virus is killing like 0,001% of the population, and mostly only the people with past complications at that.A full lockdown should have never been one of the options, like I said from the beginning.

Lockdown should have been extended only to the people that are actually in danger( have existing conditions), and life should move on.These protest will only go on, because when you have to make a choice of having no money to pay your bills, and stealing to have food on your table, it's quite obvious the choice people are going to make.

In Sweden, Will Voluntary Self-Isolation Work Better Than State-Enforced Lockdowns in the Long Run?

There’s a lot of debate over the Swedish model of coronavirus response, but there are good reasons to think a Hippocratic approach to policy may pay off.

Those who want to show how great Sweden is doing have produced charts comparing us to countries like Britain, Belgium, France, Spain, and Italy. Those who want to prove the opposite replace those countries with Norway, Denmark, and Finland, all of which have fewer deaths.

The truth is that Sweden is somewhere in the European middle when it comes to deaths per capita, which in itself is interesting. We are outliers in terms of policy, but not in terms of outcomes.

There are also reasons to think that Sweden is doing better than these comparisons suggest. Many countries don't count COVID-19 deaths outside of hospitals. When people die at home, in nursing homes, or in prisons, they don't show up in the coronavirus death count.

This has a major effect on where you are compared to other countries. According to Johns Hopkins University, Belgium has twice as many COVID-19 deaths per capita as the Netherlands. But in Belgium, almost half of those deaths are from nursing homes, while testing is more rare in Dutch nursing homes so fewer deaths there are attributed to the disease.

After France started to include nursing homes in the statistics, the total number of French COVID-19 deaths jumped by almost a third.

During the present pandemic, Sweden systematically checks the list of people who have tested positive for the virus against the population register. Every time the government discovers that someone who had the virus has died, that person is registered as a COVID-19 death if it happened within 30 days of the diagnosis—even if the cause of death was cancer or a heart attack. It means that Sweden reports the number of people who die with COVID-19, not of COVID-19.

Even in a culturally and geographically similar country like Norway—celebrated for its low death rate—they do things differently. The Norwegians only count something as a COVID-19 death if a doctor concludes that someone was killed by the disease and decides to report it to the country's public health authority.

No matter how we count, though, I assume that Sweden has had more COVID-19 deaths per capita than our Nordic neighbors. But that is an obvious result of those countries' decisions to postpone cases and deaths by locking down whole societies for a period of time. The thing to watch is what happens when they begin to open up again and will face a new wave of COVID-19. No government can keep people locked up until we have a vaccine, and most are now loosening restrictions.

Sweden's strategy would have been considered a failure if it had resulted in a peak of cases so high that the health care system had become overwhelmed and people who could have otherwise been saved died from lack of care. We are nowhere close to the end of this, but the models and pundits that predicted this outcome happening as early as late March were wrong.

The Swedes who have died from the coronavirus did not die due to lack of hospital beds or ventilators. Thanks to a rapid increase in intensive care unit capacity, 20 percent of Sweden's ICUs are unoccupied. Stockholm has built a new field hospital, already equipped to receive hundreds of COVID-19 patients, including 30 ICU beds. So far it has not had to open. The average age of the dead has been 81, which is close to our average life expectancy. And it seems like the disease is now slowing down in Sweden, not speeding up. The number of COVID-19 patients newly admitted to the ICU has been relatively stable since March 23, and since people are also getting better and leaving the hospital, the total number of patients in ICU treatment is declining somewhat, at least for the moment. The number of deaths in Sweden has been in slight decline for more than a week. We must be extremely careful in interpreting such recent trends, but at least it is far from the exponential increase many feared.

Why has Sweden done so much better than many predicted? Because others failed to see that society could respond voluntarily to the pandemic. For example, the influential Imperial College model estimates a higher reproduction rate of the disease in Sweden than in other countries, "not because the mortality trends are significantly different from any other country, but as an artefact of our model…because no full lockdown has been ordered." In other words, the model could only handle two scenarios: an enforced national lockdown or zero change in behavior. It had no way of computing Swedes who decided to socially distance voluntarily. But we did.

We are not going to shops and restaurants like we used to. But losing two-thirds of your revenue rather than 100 percent might mean the difference between life and death for many entrepreneurs. We are nowhere close to the end of the pandemic. Perhaps Sweden will do worse long term, and then we'll have some serious self-examination ahead. Or perhaps Sweden is the one place that is succeeding in limiting long-term damage, caring for the sick, and protecting the vulnerable, all while working toward herd immunity. We don't know whether the Swedish model is better or worse yet. What we do know is that Sweden has not cracked down on basic liberties like others have, and has not wrecked society and the economy to the same extent.

https://reason.com/2020/04/17/in-sweden-will-voluntary-self-isolation-work-better-than-state-enforced-lockdowns-in-the-long-run/

Yeah sure, there are stupid shit being done by one side, but there are alot of stupid shit being done by the other side, like states aresting people just because they are walking in the street.Which if I need to remind you, is a constitucional right in most countries.Examples are plenty along the thread.

And yeah, Trump has said nothing wrong.I agree with him.In most cases this lockdown is simply stupid.And that's not exclusive to the US.If I was in his position, I would have said the same thing.People who defend this extremist kind of lockdown usually can't see the gigantic damages to the economy that has already been done and will be done, because they usually think that if people don't stay home, this will be the apocalipse where billions will die.That's why having good leaders is hard, because every leader needs to make hard decisions, where nothing is black and white.That's directed to the world, not just Trump so you know, because there are more countries in the world than just the US.

And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this, far from it actually.The protest are just the tip of the iceberg in my opinion.

The virus is killing more people than any other cause currently in the US, please stop comparing it to losing a job for a few months. As already mentioned before there are various safety nets in place for the people.