As we all know, coronavirus became a worldwide threat and many countries had different responses to it. However, one stood out quite far from the others-- Sweden. Sweden did not issue a restrictive lockdown, not to say that they didn’t have limitations. High schools and colleges closed, but primary schools remained open along with the majority of businesses. Other restrictions include a limit of 50 people per gathering and banning of visitation in elderly homes. Social distancing was also encouraged. Many claim the purpose of this tactic was to achieve “herd immunity” which has not been confirmed possible and is still being studied.
As predicted, their death toll shot up higher and faster than other countries. Looking at the statistics, the daily deaths in Sweden have been gradually decreasing, seeming to have peaked in early-mid April. In opposition to our state which has greater restrictions, California’s daily deaths have been inconsistently increasing and decreasing. As of today, California’s daily death peak was July 8th, only a few days ago.
Some experts credit Sweden’s death decline to the summer heat as it was previously suggested that heat may slow the spread of coronavirus, but that doesn’t seem valid for California as we are experiencing a heat wave also. These results do not mean that Covid-19 is no longer an issue for Sweden as the numbers will likely rise again, but it does raise some questions: Were California’s restrictions excessive? Are they going to help in the long run or were they only effective in preventing deaths short term? Sweden may have been on to something, but there is no concrete evidence that their strategy will continue to thrive.
What is happening in Sweden is definitely something enlightening to hear amidst all the Covid-19 commotion that is going on in the United States. To answer your question "were California's restrictions excessive," I would have to say no, not at all. Being that we live in one of the largest states in our country, it is important that we take strict precautions in order to limit the spread of the virus. With a population of about 39.5 million people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the restrictions were implemented in order to prevent a mass infection. If we take a look at New York (with 19.45 million inhabitants), as well as Florida (with 21.47 inhabitants), and how they became the United States' epicenter(s) for Covid-19, we can only imagine what could have happened to California if the restrictions were not in place.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your second question of "whether or not the restrictions helped in the long run," I would have to answer-yes. One of the main purposes of the restrictions, was to slow the spread so that the health care system would not collapse. If they had not been there, the number of cases today would have been much higher than what they were now, and there would have been a massive strain on the health care system. Flattening the curve was needed in order to adequately prepare hospitals for a second spike as they continue to treat patients from the first. As far as the death toll of the virus, it is hard to say if they are preventable, but I do believe that the restrictions helped limit the number. The implication of lockdown created this along with the help of the other restrictions.