Quote:
Originally Posted by jyl
Maybe success or failure is relative. By the standards of its neighbors, Sweden failed. By the standards of its neighbors, Massachusetts didn't fail. I mean, would you rather measure against Denmark - or New York . . .
|
Or maybe we can manipulate what "success" or "failure" look like by being selective in our comparisons. We can select geographically, demographically, politically - whatever we choose. It all depends upon the results we are after.
In this particular case, Shaun is trumpeting the success of his governor and condemning the failure of the Swedes. The raw numbers of a direct comparison, as shown to us by Klaus, tell a far different story. Depending upon what we want those raw numbers to "tell" us, we can add in (or ignore) the contributing factors of our choice.
This is far, far more complicated than those numbers would suggest. I think we all agree on that. That's pretty much all we can honestly say at this point. Anyone touting one or the other as a "success" or as a "failure" is doing no more than displaying their confirmation biases. At this point, we have no way of knowing the outcome had either followed a different model.