Deaths per 1M population are significantly higher in Italy(577), Spain(607) and the UK(654) than they are in Sweden(539). And Sweden have been a lot more honest in counting than most countries.
There seems to be a drive to discredit the inalienable human rights approach, in this case by implying it was a financial decision; but i have to say i am impressed by the way they have handled this situation, the only response on earth that involved treating their citizens like adults.
South Korea never had lockdowns, outside of shutting down bars when they traced some superspreading events back to them. The idea that they’re somehow less committed to human rights when they’ve preserved freedom of movement, while avoiding mass deaths, is laughable on its face.
South Korea, Taiwan, Japan etc. have all done so much better that comparing the responses of “the west” is just nitpicking extremely flawed plans and executions. I know who I’m going to look for guidance in any future outbreaks
For most society level problems we are OK as long as most people behave responsibly most of the time, so this approach is great. We can inform our citizens and they can enforce good behaviour amongst themselves by tutting and grumbling in a disapproving way.
This is not true of a contagion. Occasional "just this once won't hurt" violations are enough to break containment.
That's why the countries that enforced strict measures early — suspending individual freedoms — have had better outcomes for their health and economy.
Fighting a contagion is like hygeine in a kitchen. You know which surfaces and utensils are clean or dirty, and you don't put the dirty things back with the clean things until they've been cleaned and dried.
In the same way, you try to establish regions where a contagion is/may exist/is not, and then expand the clean regions. If people have their inalienable human rights, then you can't do the basic containment strategy, because your clean regions keep getting contaminated.
Endangering the lives of others has never been an inalienable right. If not wearing a mask or being physically close to others currently breaks the non aggression principle it is reasonable for society to impose temporary measures until it no longer breaks the NAP. The countries that dealt with SARS understand this and have had the best responses globally.
> Endangering the lives of others has never been an inalienable right
That's simply wrong. I am allowed to drive a car, which is inherently dangerous to pedestrians (140,000 accidents per year in the US). I am allowed to have a lot of (or all?) contagious deseases in public, which is dangerous to the elderly and immune-compromised. I am sure there are many more examples. Small dangers are everywhere. I am all for wearing masks but let's not make up stuff.
There seems to be a drive to discredit the inalienable human rights approach, in this case by implying it was a financial decision; but i have to say i am impressed by the way they have handled this situation, the only response on earth that involved treating their citizens like adults.