I drove daily to work until March 17th. For the moment, the 1 or 2 times I drive per week are a pleasure. Losing the utility for commuting makes the car more attractive. I need to fill the gas tank once a month instead of once a week. Less emissions and more fun, what's not to like?

Today, I came to the office to water the plants in my office and some colleagues. Also to have a video call with a client in peace. The coffee machine has been turned off and carefully cleaned by the janitor. Looking at all the shiny parts of the machine lying of the kitchen bar feels like we lost something, defeat?

As our expert statistician you will know that as Sweden's virus deaths mount up so eventually will the curve flatten.

The leading Swedish epidemiologist says Sweden should have done more.
https://www.thelocal.se/20200603/teg...ht-coronavirus

Somehow tragic that the younger generation needs to go to work to have social interaction. Then there is the view that may be an old fashioned idea but shouldn't they be working not socialising?

This is interesting, the man who is partly (largely?) responsible for locking down the UK has said that Sweden achieved largely the same suppression of the virus without a hard lockdown.

This should actually form a very important part of the eventual inquiry, not necessary to point blame, but so that we LEARN from our mistakes for the future.

Professor Neil Ferguson's paper from Imperial College stated that lockdown in the UK would reduce the number of deaths from 500,000 to around 6,000. As things have transpired the number of deaths is fast approaching 40,000 in spite of a hard lockdown, an appalling loss of life. Professor Ferguson estimated 20,000 deaths would be the limit if the UK locked down. Which raises the question about lockdown, what did it achieve?

Professor Ferguson said in yesterday's select committee hearing that Brits have observed lockdown more faithfully than the models he used envisaged. So the question is what went wrong? Why are there so many deaths?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...cience-uk-has/

I'm not sure what kind of automaton you are, but generally speaking socialising is part of working. Maybe not while working, but lunch and travel to and from work still happens.
I can't think of many jobs which are solitary and considered normal, even lighthouse keepers are considered odd.

Nothing went wrong, the number of UK deaths will not reach 500,000 which was Ferguson's forecast of a non-lockdown scenario.
So lockdown reduced the forecast number of deaths by over 90%, obviously very successful.

Perhaps look at the paper itself rather than what was reported. I'll help, it's here with a further link therein to the full paper.

The paper was published on 16 March, presumably the calculations based a day or 2 before that. The UK lockdown took another week - critical at that phase of the epidemic. Also the prediction of number of cases was given as a range depending on the unbraked R0 of the virus, that range went up to 71,000 cases.

Looking back at the paper they were pretty accurate.

"automaton"? More like an old fashioned work ethic.

Socialising during travel to and from work? How long have you been in Switzerland?

Meeting people for lunch is actually possible outside the work environment assuming social distancing is observed.

What a role model.

All jobs are different. Try teaching without socializing or consulting without bonding with the clients. What about leading a team? It's possible to lead without socializing but surely the team is not generating record profits. Profit beats old-fashioned work ethic, anytime.

That doesn't sound like at a conflict of interest AT ALL. What interest could JP Morgan possibly have in advocating "business as usual" in economic markets?

"We should have done more, admits architect of Sweden's Covid-19 strategy"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...anders-tegnell

Moreover, they will make personal office spacea perk which you will have to earn. Career starter with little experience? Work from home and use shared "hot desk" twice a week when you are in office. And of course rent savings will go on the other side, in form of dividends etc, not to compensate the employee extra space needed to rent a bigger home.

what they should do more is to impose more strict rules instead of just recommendations

Some of the headlines today gives room for re-thinking - samples:

1. Will there be enough coronavirus circulating left to test for a vaccine once it
is ready.

2. Italian Doctor said coronavirus no longer exists clinically. (Personal Doctor
of former President)

3. Canadian Health Official said: Absolutely no evidence Covid-19 is airborne.

4. China delayed coronavirus information frustrating WHO.

During the lockdown, remote teaching seemed to work very well despite the moans from some involved teachers who actually had to do some new work instead of just recycling their annual teaching notes from the last x years.

Team leading is about setting and measuring goals, guiding weaker members into better practices, and providing a clear overall direction.

Reset information input:

3 probably referring to aerosols (small droplets) being a minor form of transmission compared to large airborne droplets.
maybe 4 has some credence, but the whole china/ WHO saga is not transparent

But this epidemiologist never elaborated on what Sweden should have done better - according to the article.

According to what I have read, most deaths occurred in nursing home facilities. They needed to shut them down and they failed to do so (as did many cities in the US!).

From what I have read, 80% of these deaths in Sweden were those over 75 with an existing comorbidity. Not sure whether the general lockdown is a factor (that is debatable) but rather the nursing homes should have been locked down earlier.

Yes, the mistake they made like so many others, is that Sweden allowed the virus to enter care homes and hospitals. Note Mr Tegnell at no point said Sweden should have gone into full lockdown.