Why does no one ever talk about Sweden anymore?(ianmsc.substack.com)
ianmsc.substack.com
Why does no one ever talk about Sweden anymore?
https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/why-does-no-one-ever-talk-about-sweden
192 comments
We should be talking about Sweden a lot more.
Compared to Norway the number of covid deaths so far is about tenfold higher. How that counts as success is beyond me.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Sweden's number of deaths per capita related to COVID are also a lot higher than those of Denmark and Finland.
Why compare those against each other? Because these four nations are close to each other geographically[0] and when it comes to the climate[1], rather similar culturally[2], and economically similar too in that the populations are by and large comparatively "well off".
All other things equal (or rather similar at least), the differences in COVID deaths are likely in a larger part due to differences in public policy regarding the direct COVID response in particular and/or health care more generally.
This is just guess work (a lot of people did), of course, but I've yet to read any other plausible explanations for these major differences.
[0] Neighboring each other, with Norway (~150 deaths/million) west, Finland (~190) east and Denmark (~450) south of Sweden (~1450). Schleswig-Holstein, the German Federal State bordering Denmark to the South with a sizable Danish minority living there also has a similar rate (~580) to Denmark. (German rate is ~1110).
[1] Weather and temperature have been identified as correlating strongly with COVID spread, not just because of how well the virus can survive in different temperatures, but also because of how humans will behave in different weather conditions (stay inside or go out).
[2] These nations historically developed close to each other, and occupied each other a lot of times. E.g. Norway only became fully independent from Sweden in 1905. These nations have a lot of shared cultural heritage which still informs a lot of the culture today.
Why compare those against each other? Because these four nations are close to each other geographically[0] and when it comes to the climate[1], rather similar culturally[2], and economically similar too in that the populations are by and large comparatively "well off".
All other things equal (or rather similar at least), the differences in COVID deaths are likely in a larger part due to differences in public policy regarding the direct COVID response in particular and/or health care more generally.
This is just guess work (a lot of people did), of course, but I've yet to read any other plausible explanations for these major differences.
[0] Neighboring each other, with Norway (~150 deaths/million) west, Finland (~190) east and Denmark (~450) south of Sweden (~1450). Schleswig-Holstein, the German Federal State bordering Denmark to the South with a sizable Danish minority living there also has a similar rate (~580) to Denmark. (German rate is ~1110).
[1] Weather and temperature have been identified as correlating strongly with COVID spread, not just because of how well the virus can survive in different temperatures, but also because of how humans will behave in different weather conditions (stay inside or go out).
[2] These nations historically developed close to each other, and occupied each other a lot of times. E.g. Norway only became fully independent from Sweden in 1905. These nations have a lot of shared cultural heritage which still informs a lot of the culture today.
These numbers are to some extent distortions brought about by Sweden having different ways of associating deaths with COVID-19. If you look at overall numbers the Netherlands has similar accounting and similar results. It is also true that if you look along borders such as between Sweden and Norway there is little difference along them. The bulk of cases in Sweden were in very specific communities, in particular immigrants in urban areas and old people in care homes, so the result of this focus on averages per nation ends up being distorted.
> These numbers are to some extent distortions brought about by Sweden having different ways of associating deaths with COVID-19.
This is why anyone should be extremely wary of comparing "deaths per million" statistics across nations, since the statistic is 1) not standardized and 2) not always trustworthy.
Counting excess mortality isn't as good, but at least it's normalized across the board, so you can make some kind of meaningful comparison.
This is why anyone should be extremely wary of comparing "deaths per million" statistics across nations, since the statistic is 1) not standardized and 2) not always trustworthy.
Counting excess mortality isn't as good, but at least it's normalized across the board, so you can make some kind of meaningful comparison.
If the Swedish approach was indeed especially hazardous to sensitive populations. Then that’s exactly not OK.
And compare with France which had one the strictest locked down policy, hard restrictions, covid pass, etc. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
They have the same numbers...
Fun fact: Norway was one of the only country in Europe to have strict closed border. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/stricter-border-contro...
They have the same numbers...
Fun fact: Norway was one of the only country in Europe to have strict closed border. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/stricter-border-contro...
Because both Norway and Denmark closed their borders, Sweden was as a result also closed. A key point when the danish side reopened was that the Sweden city Malmö on the Swedish side had lower infection rates than Copenhagen on the Danish side.
Both Denmark and Norway later issued rules that allowed Swedes to cross between the nations if they lived in low infection rate parts of Sweden. It was mostly people from Stockholm that could not pass.
Both Denmark and Norway later issued rules that allowed Swedes to cross between the nations if they lived in low infection rate parts of Sweden. It was mostly people from Stockholm that could not pass.
But it's still only half of the number of deaths in my country (Czech Republic) with mask and testing mandates, closed schools and most events cancelled.
This is actually interesting because it was not that strict in Norway as it was in ČR.
On the other hand there is also different level of trust between citizens and the government. But there are probably more variables.
On the other hand there is also different level of trust between citizens and the government. But there are probably more variables.
Susceptibility to Covid will likely be an interesting topic for PhDs for years to come.
We might have a slightly higher prevalence of some random genetic feature in Czechia that makes our death rate higher.
Overall on the map of Europe, it seems that death rates varied wildly and not according to usual patterns. For example, you would expect higher death rate in less developed southern Italy than in Lombardy.
We might have a slightly higher prevalence of some random genetic feature in Czechia that makes our death rate higher.
Overall on the map of Europe, it seems that death rates varied wildly and not according to usual patterns. For example, you would expect higher death rate in less developed southern Italy than in Lombardy.
The Czech Republic was often held up as a big success during the first few months of the pandemic, and had much lower deaths than Sweden for a while. Then last fall, things quickly changed.
A good reminder that people need to be patient and stop prematurely declaring victory or defeat.
A good reminder that people need to be patient and stop prematurely declaring victory or defeat.
I’m from CZ but live in Sweden. I don’t think there is any magic (no gene difference as someone here suggested..)
Here’s the things I noticed that were clearly different between the two countries:
1. The rules were clear from the start and didn’t change much. FHM said from the beginning that the virus is here to stay and set the rules so that they are sustainable (most importantly: schools were never closed). There was no screw-unscrew-screw-… loop
2. Many more people worked from home here than in CZ. I don’t know what to attribute this to, it can be because Swedes are generally better acquainted with technology or that there are more jobs that can be done from home in Sweden.
3. People actually follow the rules (for the most part..there still were student parties and such). This can be an effect of people trusting their politicians and the government agencies but maybe just a different mentality. I still remember that during my visit to Prague people at the Billa supermarket at the Prague train station were absolutely not keeping distance and were touching bagels (rohlíky :-)) without any gloves. Masks and lockdowns won’t save you then…
4. People are generally much fitter here. You won’t see the typical Czech beer belly, in general everyone keeps themselves in shape and eats quite well.
Contrary to what many might think the level of healthcare is about the same in my experience.
I’m really no Tegnell fanboy, many things about him irk me a lot (his constant picking on other countries the most) and I wish the Swedish government took a more active role sooner rather than let FHM steer everything for about 9 months, but in general I think the Swedish strategy was good.
Here’s the things I noticed that were clearly different between the two countries:
1. The rules were clear from the start and didn’t change much. FHM said from the beginning that the virus is here to stay and set the rules so that they are sustainable (most importantly: schools were never closed). There was no screw-unscrew-screw-… loop
2. Many more people worked from home here than in CZ. I don’t know what to attribute this to, it can be because Swedes are generally better acquainted with technology or that there are more jobs that can be done from home in Sweden.
3. People actually follow the rules (for the most part..there still were student parties and such). This can be an effect of people trusting their politicians and the government agencies but maybe just a different mentality. I still remember that during my visit to Prague people at the Billa supermarket at the Prague train station were absolutely not keeping distance and were touching bagels (rohlíky :-)) without any gloves. Masks and lockdowns won’t save you then…
4. People are generally much fitter here. You won’t see the typical Czech beer belly, in general everyone keeps themselves in shape and eats quite well.
Contrary to what many might think the level of healthcare is about the same in my experience.
I’m really no Tegnell fanboy, many things about him irk me a lot (his constant picking on other countries the most) and I wish the Swedish government took a more active role sooner rather than let FHM steer everything for about 9 months, but in general I think the Swedish strategy was good.
You can always find a comparison that is extreme in either direction. There is nothing that suggests that the outcome in Sweden would have been that of Norway, if the policies had been more similar. It’s possible, but far from certain.
Also, given how many deaths are of extremely vulnerable elderly (many of which would have died from any cold, or within a year regardless), “total deaths” are perhaps not the best measure of success. It will show how well the disease was kept out of living facilities for the very old, mostly (which in Sweden was “not very well”). The difference in how elderly care is operated in Sweden and Norway is pretty big, and that I think is a policy failure that should be looked at.
Also, given how many deaths are of extremely vulnerable elderly (many of which would have died from any cold, or within a year regardless), “total deaths” are perhaps not the best measure of success. It will show how well the disease was kept out of living facilities for the very old, mostly (which in Sweden was “not very well”). The difference in how elderly care is operated in Sweden and Norway is pretty big, and that I think is a policy failure that should be looked at.
> There is nothing that suggests that the outcome in Sweden would have been that of Norway, if the policies had been more similar.
All the other scandinavian countries had policies and outcomes like norway.
All the other scandinavian countries had policies and outcomes like norway.
Denmark has more than twice the cumulative deaths per million people of Norway, are you saying that is still to be considered the same outcome?
2x seems like a much closer ballpark than 10x, especially with Denmark being part of mainland europe and significantly denser? (Denmark has a higher population than Norway on 1/10th the surface, excluding greenland).
Density may play a role, but Norway, Denmark and Finland have urbanization rates of 83% to 88%. E.g. a fifth of Norway's entire population resides within the Oslo metropolitan area and a fifth of Sweden's population resides within the Stockholm metropolitan area.
Denmark is a lot closer to Norway than Sweden. Denmark has a third of the COVID-related deaths of Sweden. I think the actual numbers are more illustrative here than fractions:
- Sweden: ~1450 deaths per million
Population: ~10.2 million
Density: ~25 people/km^2
Urbanization: 88%
Rates compared: 10x Norway, 8x Finland, 3x Denmark
- Denmark: ~450 deaths per million
Population: ~5.8 million
Density: ~137 people/km^2
Urbanization: 88%
Rates compared: 3x Norway, 2.5x Finland
- Finland: ~190 deaths per million
Population: ~5.5 million
Density: ~18 people/km^2
Urbanization: 86%
Rates compared: 1.2x Norway
- Norway: ~150 deaths per million
Population: ~5.3 million
Density: ~15 people/km^2
Urbanization: 83%> given how many deaths are of extremely vulnerable elderly (many of which would have died from any cold, or within a year regardless),
I though we had really gotten over this?
Then again, I thought we had gotten over the idea of Sweden’s tenfold death rate being good in any sense, as well…
I though we had really gotten over this?
Then again, I thought we had gotten over the idea of Sweden’s tenfold death rate being good in any sense, as well…
Not great, not terrible…
The same number of people have died in Sweden and Norway over the last four years [0].
For some reason more people died in Norway than in Sweden in the couple years before the pandemic, then Sweden caught up during the pandemic. They are tied over the last four years.
More people may have died of covid in Sweden because there were more old vulnerable people in Sweden.
[0] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201116/Study-compares-de...
For some reason more people died in Norway than in Sweden in the couple years before the pandemic, then Sweden caught up during the pandemic. They are tied over the last four years.
More people may have died of covid in Sweden because there were more old vulnerable people in Sweden.
[0] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201116/Study-compares-de...
If you add South Africa who had draconian rules you might see it diffently.
>Compared to Norway the number of covid deaths so far is about tenfold higher. How that counts as success is beyond me.
How is 19 million dead soldiers from Allied forces counted as success and win in WW2 is also beyond me.
How is 19 million dead soldiers from Allied forces counted as success and win in WW2 is also beyond me.
Why was this flagged so fast? The article doesn't seem to present fake numbers and I was looking forward to having people who live there tell us how people behave over there and what could really be behind their (relative) success.
The dates seem cherry-picked at a glance. The wave of criticism dates back to the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, but some of the charts focus on "recent" results, starting as late as February 2021.
Isn't it the whole point though? That announced sure disasters didn't happen?
...the entire point of the post is that Sweden is not talked about anymore
It quotes a tweet comparing death rates of a single city (Los Angeles) to entire countries...
Not fake, but it should be obvious that the statistics of a small geographical area might not be comparable to that of a much larger one.
Just wait till you find out the death rate at a single nursing home vs the surrounding 100km^2!
Not fake, but it should be obvious that the statistics of a small geographical area might not be comparable to that of a much larger one.
Just wait till you find out the death rate at a single nursing home vs the surrounding 100km^2!
yuturs(1)
"Var är mormor, Anders?"
I tend to agree that we could talk about Sweden more but most likely for a very different reason: they managed to turn the corner despite the lax rules and not because of them. The outcome, I think, can be attributed to the fact that Sweden is a developed country with a strong health and well-fare system and economic ability (and socially pre-existing tendency!) for distancing without going bankrupt in the process (think: remote work instead of work that requires physical presence in e.g. a workshop - I doubt that such an outcome would have been possible in a country with widespread day-labour and people living hand-to-mouth). People were eventually able to react correctly all by themselves but it took a while and that costed a lot of lives. That does not mean that they could not have saved a lot of people with a different approach, like Norway or Finland managed to. Those did not really fare much worse economically in the process and that without incurring the huge cost of lives like Sweden did in the beginning. If you translate the swedish snippet at the top of the post, you might be able to guess who I blame for that.
I tend to agree that we could talk about Sweden more but most likely for a very different reason: they managed to turn the corner despite the lax rules and not because of them. The outcome, I think, can be attributed to the fact that Sweden is a developed country with a strong health and well-fare system and economic ability (and socially pre-existing tendency!) for distancing without going bankrupt in the process (think: remote work instead of work that requires physical presence in e.g. a workshop - I doubt that such an outcome would have been possible in a country with widespread day-labour and people living hand-to-mouth). People were eventually able to react correctly all by themselves but it took a while and that costed a lot of lives. That does not mean that they could not have saved a lot of people with a different approach, like Norway or Finland managed to. Those did not really fare much worse economically in the process and that without incurring the huge cost of lives like Sweden did in the beginning. If you translate the swedish snippet at the top of the post, you might be able to guess who I blame for that.
Indeed Tegnell sacrificed the old and the weak in line with the old Scandinan tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%84ttestupa
Your very link suggests that the tradition likely never existed.
If it did, you would expect some archeological discovery supporting it. You can't throw old people into a hole for centuries without a cache of bones developing at the bottom.
There is, for example, ample physical evidence of Aztec human sacrifice.
If it did, you would expect some archeological discovery supporting it. You can't throw old people into a hole for centuries without a cache of bones developing at the bottom.
There is, for example, ample physical evidence of Aztec human sacrifice.
Also, "Ancient Carthaginians really did sacrifice their children", with ample archaeological evidence.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-r...
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-r...
Eh I would more say that the opposite is an old tradition
Not made with malice in mind instead out of neccesity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_Act_(Sweden)
There’s probably very small intersection between those who favor copying Sweden’s response to the pandemic with those who favor copying Sweden’s overall social/health care system.
I mean Florida and Texas went to extreme ‘do nothing at all’ positions, and the results were not good.
I mean Florida and Texas went to extreme ‘do nothing at all’ positions, and the results were not good.
> I mean Florida and Texas went to extreme ‘do nothing at all’ positions, and the results were not good.
Texas (23rd overall; 211/100k) and Florida (10th overall; 237/100k) are both mid-pack amongst US states for Covid mortality rate, even before adjusting by age (if you adjust by age, Florida, in particular, looks better, because of the number of elderly people who move there to retire):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...
Among those states doing substantially worse:
For Florida: New Jersey (306/100k), New York (281/100k), Massachusetts (267/100k)
For Texas: all of the above, plus Connecticut (237/100k), Pennsylvania (235/100k), and maybe Illinois (212/100k)
All of these are states whose governors imposed stringent restrictions on daily life. Florida and Texas have certainly been intensely covered by the press, but the reality of the situation is not accurately reflected by the intensity of the news coverage.
--
EDIT: Others are quick to point out that the distribution of mortality over time is different for these states, which is true. But you also cannot leap to the conclusion that the most recent differences in mortality are due to policy decisions made months ago. Florida saw >60% of its Covid-related deaths prior to March 2021 (the advent of mass vaccination), but it lifted most Covid restrictions starting in October 2020:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-lifts-covid-19-restric...
Any claim that New York (for example) did far better during the pre-vaccination period has to contend with the fact that 87% of its mortality happened prior to vaccination, despite substantially greater restrictions on daily life:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
One could argue that NY is a special case, since most of its mortality happened in spring 2020. But that isn't true for, say, Illinois, which had the vast majority of its deaths in the winter of 2020, and still saw 85% of its total mortality prior to March 1:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/illinois/
There is no simple narrative here. Seasonality, climate and chance (i.e. who gets hit first) all play a large role in how states do. People are far too quick to attribute success or failure to a single factor.
Texas (23rd overall; 211/100k) and Florida (10th overall; 237/100k) are both mid-pack amongst US states for Covid mortality rate, even before adjusting by age (if you adjust by age, Florida, in particular, looks better, because of the number of elderly people who move there to retire):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...
Among those states doing substantially worse:
For Florida: New Jersey (306/100k), New York (281/100k), Massachusetts (267/100k)
For Texas: all of the above, plus Connecticut (237/100k), Pennsylvania (235/100k), and maybe Illinois (212/100k)
All of these are states whose governors imposed stringent restrictions on daily life. Florida and Texas have certainly been intensely covered by the press, but the reality of the situation is not accurately reflected by the intensity of the news coverage.
--
EDIT: Others are quick to point out that the distribution of mortality over time is different for these states, which is true. But you also cannot leap to the conclusion that the most recent differences in mortality are due to policy decisions made months ago. Florida saw >60% of its Covid-related deaths prior to March 2021 (the advent of mass vaccination), but it lifted most Covid restrictions starting in October 2020:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-lifts-covid-19-restric...
Any claim that New York (for example) did far better during the pre-vaccination period has to contend with the fact that 87% of its mortality happened prior to vaccination, despite substantially greater restrictions on daily life:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
One could argue that NY is a special case, since most of its mortality happened in spring 2020. But that isn't true for, say, Illinois, which had the vast majority of its deaths in the winter of 2020, and still saw 85% of its total mortality prior to March 1:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/illinois/
There is no simple narrative here. Seasonality, climate and chance (i.e. who gets hit first) all play a large role in how states do. People are far too quick to attribute success or failure to a single factor.
I think part of what is missed is the temporal nature of the pandemic - Florida is doing quite poorly now when we have treatments and knowledge of how to slow COVID whereas NY and MA did poorly early on.
Yes, that's a factor. Also, vaccination. However, both states did have substantial mortality before 2021, and any serious analysis has to take the timing into account.
Ultimately, however, the top-line facts are opposed to the narrative that TX and FL did substantially worse because of their choices. They did not.
Ultimately, however, the top-line facts are opposed to the narrative that TX and FL did substantially worse because of their choices. They did not.
Show this graph for just the last 4-5 months, not from the beginning of the pandemic.
That's a fair point, and it's a difficult analysis to do for every state simultaneously, but even a cursory look at the data shows that it's not as dramatic as has been claimed. The majority of Florida's Covid deaths happened prior to March 2021:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/
By this source, ~32k of Florida's deaths happened prior to March 1, and now they're at ~51k. So 32k/51k = 63% of Florida's deaths happened prior to mass vaccination. For NY the equivalent percentage is 48k / 55k = 87%:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
So yes, Florida has had 19k deaths (vs New York's 7k deaths) since vaccines became available, but they also did substantially better than New York throughout 2020 and early 2021, despite far fewer restrictions for nearly all of that time.
It isn't a simple narrative.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/
By this source, ~32k of Florida's deaths happened prior to March 1, and now they're at ~51k. So 32k/51k = 63% of Florida's deaths happened prior to mass vaccination. For NY the equivalent percentage is 48k / 55k = 87%:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
So yes, Florida has had 19k deaths (vs New York's 7k deaths) since vaccines became available, but they also did substantially better than New York throughout 2020 and early 2021, despite far fewer restrictions for nearly all of that time.
It isn't a simple narrative.
New York had a huge number of deaths early. They went from around 10 on Apr 1 2020 to 120 on May 1 2020 (all numbers are cumulative per 100k). They were at 153 by Jun 1 2020.
From June 1 2020 to the end of 2020 they had an additional 40.
In the first 6 months of 2021 they added 80.
Since then they have added 7.
Florida was still around 10 by June 1 2020.
From June 1 to the end of 2020 they added 90.
In the first 6 months of 2021, Florida added 75.
Since then they have added 63.
Comparing, Florida did substantially better than New York for the first 10% of the time since the pandemic started. For the second half of 2020 New York had less than half the death rate of Florida. In the first half of 2021 they were close. Then, in the era of widespread vaccine availability New York has dropped an order of magnitude from where they were in the first half of 2021 whereas Florida has merely dropped about 20%.
From June 1 2020 to the end of 2020 they had an additional 40.
In the first 6 months of 2021 they added 80.
Since then they have added 7.
Florida was still around 10 by June 1 2020.
From June 1 to the end of 2020 they added 90.
In the first 6 months of 2021, Florida added 75.
Since then they have added 63.
Comparing, Florida did substantially better than New York for the first 10% of the time since the pandemic started. For the second half of 2020 New York had less than half the death rate of Florida. In the first half of 2021 they were close. Then, in the era of widespread vaccine availability New York has dropped an order of magnitude from where they were in the first half of 2021 whereas Florida has merely dropped about 20%.
> Comparing, Florida did substantially better than New York for the first 10% of the time since the pandemic started. For the second half of 2020 New York had less than half the death rate of Florida. In the first half of 2021 they were close.
That's unique to New York, which had a particularly skewed distribution. Compare to Illinois (which also had severe restrictions), where most of the mortality was in winter 2020:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/illinois/
Or to California (same pattern), which has a higher age-adjusted mortality rate than FL, despite some of the most ridiculously over-the-top restrictions in the country:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
Or to Pennsylvania, which is similar overall:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/pennsylvania/
You really have to cherry-pick the data to make the argument that this is because of policy decisions around NPIs. The patterns being described here have as much to do with seasonality as anything else, and if you don't control for that fact, then any argument is simply pointless. That's all I'm saying.
These simple narratives that "Florida didn't do $my_preferred_intervention, and look how that turned out!" are far more heat than light. If $preferred_intervention were really as effective as claimed, then it would be simply unambiguous that they're doing worse. Instead, they're about mid-pack for overall mortality. In the big natural experiment of Covid responses, there's no clear signal that anything works, other than vaccination.
> Then, in the era of widespread vaccine availability New York has dropped an order of magnitude from where they were in the first half of 2021 whereas Florida has merely dropped about 20%.
OK. I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make with this. Is it that Florida isn't vaccinating people, and that's why the mortality rate is higher in summer 2021? Florida is at 66% partial vaccination, vs. New York's 69.9%:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
Again, seasonality plays a huge role here, and the media narrative is hyperbolic. I expect that the northeastern states will see a mortality increase in the fall, because they always do, even before SARS-CoV2. Meanwhile, Florida's wave will probably fall.
That's unique to New York, which had a particularly skewed distribution. Compare to Illinois (which also had severe restrictions), where most of the mortality was in winter 2020:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/illinois/
Or to California (same pattern), which has a higher age-adjusted mortality rate than FL, despite some of the most ridiculously over-the-top restrictions in the country:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
Or to Pennsylvania, which is similar overall:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/pennsylvania/
You really have to cherry-pick the data to make the argument that this is because of policy decisions around NPIs. The patterns being described here have as much to do with seasonality as anything else, and if you don't control for that fact, then any argument is simply pointless. That's all I'm saying.
These simple narratives that "Florida didn't do $my_preferred_intervention, and look how that turned out!" are far more heat than light. If $preferred_intervention were really as effective as claimed, then it would be simply unambiguous that they're doing worse. Instead, they're about mid-pack for overall mortality. In the big natural experiment of Covid responses, there's no clear signal that anything works, other than vaccination.
> Then, in the era of widespread vaccine availability New York has dropped an order of magnitude from where they were in the first half of 2021 whereas Florida has merely dropped about 20%.
OK. I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make with this. Is it that Florida isn't vaccinating people, and that's why the mortality rate is higher in summer 2021? Florida is at 66% partial vaccination, vs. New York's 69.9%:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
Again, seasonality plays a huge role here, and the media narrative is hyperbolic. I expect that the northeastern states will see a mortality increase in the fall, because they always do, even before SARS-CoV2. Meanwhile, Florida's wave will probably fall.
South Africa has implemented shutdown after shutdown destroying livelyhoods.
The government have a state of emergency that gives them power above the law and a lot of public money has already been stolen.
With all the draconian measures the infection and death rate continues upward.
The government have a state of emergency that gives them power above the law and a lot of public money has already been stolen.
With all the draconian measures the infection and death rate continues upward.
South African data were strange for most of the 2020. They either lied about it or weren't able to provide good data. Probably they tried to fix (or mask) the situation later, when it was too late
Based on what evidence?
Based on my opinion. Everybody can see by themselves what was wrong there.
I really think people have just decided, correctly in my view, that these kinds of cross-border comparisons are useless. As the author amply demonstrates (although he doesn’t seem to be in on the joke), you can support literally any claim you want by just digging for the right stats, because there’s no robust way to identify what the counterfactual is.
While the article does have a point, it's too soon to conclude why some places had more or less covid infections/deaths.
If you look at the overall global picture - location, climate, size, population, demographics, education, GDP, mask mandates, ... - there is no clear conclusion, it's a causal mess.
It's safe to say that at this moment nobody can predict where a covid wave will hit and how big it will be, outside a very general sense - that it might be bad in the winter in unvaccinated places.
If you look at the overall global picture - location, climate, size, population, demographics, education, GDP, mask mandates, ... - there is no clear conclusion, it's a causal mess.
It's safe to say that at this moment nobody can predict where a covid wave will hit and how big it will be, outside a very general sense - that it might be bad in the winter in unvaccinated places.
A major confounding factor with things like mask mandates is that there is no reliable data on adherence and no reliable data on types of masks used by the general public. N95 masks are better than ordinary surgical masks and surgical masks are better than neck gators or cheap thin cloth masks.
[deleted]
Germany had a N95 mask mandate (called FFP2 in Europe), nothing else was allowed, and yet had a very similar infection curve to Sweeden (according to article picture) which had no mask mandate.
Mask quality is definitely a factor, but can't be the major factor, unless people wear masks 100% of the time and never take them off outside of the house, which we know it's not true. There is also the "eye protection" factor, which seems to exist.
Mask quality is definitely a factor, but can't be the major factor, unless people wear masks 100% of the time and never take them off outside of the house, which we know it's not true. There is also the "eye protection" factor, which seems to exist.
We know it helps doctors as doctors had lower rate than general population in USA and we also know severity of case is linked to severity of exposure.. so it’s safe to assume masks have helped a ton
The mechanics are so simple it’s weird to me that people argue otherwise.
I'm not really sure it's fair to consider the article as making its point at all. At the outset the author seems to rail against "The Science" but then goes on to show data that kind of disputes their own point.
As just one example, they make the point that Sweden's recently mortality rate is pretty close to Finland and Norway, and show a graph of rate of excess deaths per 100k people, showing Sweden at 0.06 and Finland and Norway at 0.04.
That's 2000 additional excess deaths in Sweden per 100k people than their neighbours. This equates to an additional 208k+ people that would die if the full country was infected, based on the presented mortality rate data.
If we want to be scientific about this point, we'd have to ask several questions to actually understand whether those numbers are meaningful in the way the author suggests:
- Is it typical for Sweden's all-cause mortality rate to be 50% higher than its neighbours? - If not, what is the typical difference? - Could there be other unaccounted-for confounding factors?
That these questions and answers were omitted I think demonstrates pretty clearly the author hasn't fully considered the point they are attempting to make, or suggests that these questions were not answered because by answering them it may undermine the point they set out to make.
As just one example, they make the point that Sweden's recently mortality rate is pretty close to Finland and Norway, and show a graph of rate of excess deaths per 100k people, showing Sweden at 0.06 and Finland and Norway at 0.04.
That's 2000 additional excess deaths in Sweden per 100k people than their neighbours. This equates to an additional 208k+ people that would die if the full country was infected, based on the presented mortality rate data.
If we want to be scientific about this point, we'd have to ask several questions to actually understand whether those numbers are meaningful in the way the author suggests:
- Is it typical for Sweden's all-cause mortality rate to be 50% higher than its neighbours? - If not, what is the typical difference? - Could there be other unaccounted-for confounding factors?
That these questions and answers were omitted I think demonstrates pretty clearly the author hasn't fully considered the point they are attempting to make, or suggests that these questions were not answered because by answering them it may undermine the point they set out to make.
I would like metrics that leave out the initial spike in Sweden from an unfortunate early spike in deaths from senior homes/care facilities. In a connected global economy it may be hard for a small country to shield itself from economic ripple effects, but I wonder if at least the excess deaths metrics would look significantly better without that early spike, so that we can talk about whether a smaller set of measures strike a better balance between freedoms and public safety.
Another interesting angle to examine internationally is natural immunity. For example India had a large delta spike when the variant first appeared, and since then they have had a very low number of cases, and are transitioning to treating the virus as endemic. A recent sero survey found that 90% of people in Mumbai have antibodies (https://www.reuters.com/world/india/almost-90-people-indias-...). Given the low infection fatality rate for those who are healthy and under 50, I wonder if that population should just go about their lives freely to develop natural immunity, which would then make it harder for everyone else to get infected.
Another interesting angle to examine internationally is natural immunity. For example India had a large delta spike when the variant first appeared, and since then they have had a very low number of cases, and are transitioning to treating the virus as endemic. A recent sero survey found that 90% of people in Mumbai have antibodies (https://www.reuters.com/world/india/almost-90-people-indias-...). Given the low infection fatality rate for those who are healthy and under 50, I wonder if that population should just go about their lives freely to develop natural immunity, which would then make it harder for everyone else to get infected.
Reminder: The core skill of a politician is to spin credit in his favor for events that are out of his control.
I just can't take this article seriously, so reactionary, so rebellious. All the criticism it applies can be applied to itself. At the end of the day, there's a lot of data that is hard to correlate and harder to find causation for.
This person claims to know better, yet provides no suggestions, just complaints, pointing fingers at imaginary figures like "The Media", "The Science", "The Expert".
People that just like to complain and point the finger aren't helpful. Being helpful takes a whole other kind of person, and this article isn't helpful.
This person claims to know better, yet provides no suggestions, just complaints, pointing fingers at imaginary figures like "The Media", "The Science", "The Expert".
People that just like to complain and point the finger aren't helpful. Being helpful takes a whole other kind of person, and this article isn't helpful.
Can you even post about your doubts anywhere on the internet without hordes of "The Media", "The Science", "The Experts" coming for you trying to scold you, cancel you, report you to your employer?
Obviously, I'm don't consider myself an expert in the medical field but the mere draconian groupthink has left a bitter taste in me and has clouded my judgement.
Obviously, I'm don't consider myself an expert in the medical field but the mere draconian groupthink has left a bitter taste in me and has clouded my judgement.
There are literally millions of bad takes, every day, on every social media available, that don't get canceled. It is a microcosm of drama that has been shown the largely irrelevant in the real world.
Reddits conspiracy channel is the best. But it's absurd we have to be called conspiracy theorists to have an intelligent discussion these days.
Sort that channel in "top per day" mode and a real discussion is going on.
Sort that channel in "top per day" mode and a real discussion is going on.
reddit's conspiracy channel is groupthink (or, the lacking of critical thought?) at it's absolute worst. Point out the obvious flaws in their reasoning, get banned, just as fast as any other subreddit.
In short, reddit is cancerous no matter the forum.
Exactly. Even though I thought the author was bringing up an important point, I couldn't take them seriously due to the repeated finger-pointing and the conspiracy-theorist attitude.
Ironically this is the exact point criticised by the article.
Namely people's preference for pseudoscientifically presented factoids of arbitrary provenance over more fruitful, curated discussions in more approachable, honest language.
Namely people's preference for pseudoscientifically presented factoids of arbitrary provenance over more fruitful, curated discussions in more approachable, honest language.
Sure, let's totally ignore that and instead turn to places where the same topic is discussed in a calm, scientific, factual manner, that does not involve conspiracies and finger pointing. BTW, where is that? Could you point me to such places that are discussing Sweden and Israel data right now?
Sadly the lies, skewed narratives and new kinds of ideologies are abundant in media, politics and counter-culture this day.
Here are a couple of key concerns that I have with the data and the anti-covid measures : 1) There is no baseline. How many people die with a postive PCR-test for influenza or other coronaviruses each year? Did we ever test millions of sick people? 2) How did the morbidity actually change after the spread of Sars-CoV-2? If you want to measure this you need to compute some age-adjusted probability that people will die in a given year. Data from germany suggests that although ~100k people died, the probability to die didn't change much or at least changed around a typical baseline for the last 10 years. 3) If age-adjusted morbidity didn't change then PCR-tests measure natural morbidity to a large extend. 4) Nobody is talking about the negative impact of the lockdown. To name a few : less births in several countries in the EU, inflation, +60% cases of anorexia in german youth, +10% increased tabacco usage in germany, no proper schooling for 2 years, social cooling in general, ... I could go on endlessly. 5) The language changed. There are hundrets of new words invented around a common frame of reality in the last year. Everybody uses these words that nobody would understand nor use <=2019. This is very worrysome in my opinion because it shows a radical change in ideology of the population that goes way beyond a pandemic and shows changes in mass psychology.
Here are a couple of key concerns that I have with the data and the anti-covid measures : 1) There is no baseline. How many people die with a postive PCR-test for influenza or other coronaviruses each year? Did we ever test millions of sick people? 2) How did the morbidity actually change after the spread of Sars-CoV-2? If you want to measure this you need to compute some age-adjusted probability that people will die in a given year. Data from germany suggests that although ~100k people died, the probability to die didn't change much or at least changed around a typical baseline for the last 10 years. 3) If age-adjusted morbidity didn't change then PCR-tests measure natural morbidity to a large extend. 4) Nobody is talking about the negative impact of the lockdown. To name a few : less births in several countries in the EU, inflation, +60% cases of anorexia in german youth, +10% increased tabacco usage in germany, no proper schooling for 2 years, social cooling in general, ... I could go on endlessly. 5) The language changed. There are hundrets of new words invented around a common frame of reality in the last year. Everybody uses these words that nobody would understand nor use <=2019. This is very worrysome in my opinion because it shows a radical change in ideology of the population that goes way beyond a pandemic and shows changes in mass psychology.
1-3: Have you heard of "excess mortality"? (Genuine question, not snark). That's commonly used as a measure to understand the underlying mortality rather than "death within X days of a positive PCR test". E.g. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
4: People are absolutely talking about the negative impact of the lockdowns. I'm not sure why you think otherwise - there have been robust debates about this, at least in the UK media. Perhaps what you mean is that you think it hasn't been taken into account in a way that you'd like?
5: This is a once-in-a-century event. Of course there's new language around it.
4: People are absolutely talking about the negative impact of the lockdowns. I'm not sure why you think otherwise - there have been robust debates about this, at least in the UK media. Perhaps what you mean is that you think it hasn't been taken into account in a way that you'd like?
5: This is a once-in-a-century event. Of course there's new language around it.
1: This has nothing to do with excess mortality per se but rather with proper data analysis.
2-3: That's exactly what I mean but you should not measure excess mortality as absolute deaths / million people but you should adjust for demographics. Because if you have older population, you will have more expected deaths. And if you adjust for age the excess mortality vanishes for germany.
4: Yes, it is talked about but not to the extend that would be necessary. In reality most people experience the various negative consequences of the lockdown policies but very few the negative consequences of the virus.
5: This is certainly debatable. If you compare this to the HIV-pandemic (still ~1mio Deaths / yr), then Covid has a factor of 10^5 more public attention (but 2x the death toll). A similar number of people die of tuberculosis. Nobody knows how many people die of influenza or coronavirus each year. We suspect there are 100 Mio dengue virus infections each year. Nobody knows what a once-in-a-century pandemic is. It seems to be a matter of public attention and newness instead of careful data analysis.
2-3: That's exactly what I mean but you should not measure excess mortality as absolute deaths / million people but you should adjust for demographics. Because if you have older population, you will have more expected deaths. And if you adjust for age the excess mortality vanishes for germany.
4: Yes, it is talked about but not to the extend that would be necessary. In reality most people experience the various negative consequences of the lockdown policies but very few the negative consequences of the virus.
5: This is certainly debatable. If you compare this to the HIV-pandemic (still ~1mio Deaths / yr), then Covid has a factor of 10^5 more public attention (but 2x the death toll). A similar number of people die of tuberculosis. Nobody knows how many people die of influenza or coronavirus each year. We suspect there are 100 Mio dengue virus infections each year. Nobody knows what a once-in-a-century pandemic is. It seems to be a matter of public attention and newness instead of careful data analysis.
Necessary for what? To convince everyone to stop with masks and restrictions?
It's not just about mortality rates. The other problem is hospitalizations. If you get in a bad car accident, get a bad infection, or have a pregnancy go bad you want an ICU bed not occupied by someone drowning from COVID. I expect most of these mortality rates are from places that didn't have their hospital systems collapse and have to ration care. I think US is heading there in some states, then mortality will get closer to that hospitalization rate.
Excess mortality has to somehow account for reduced commuting, reduced regular medical visits, more domestic violence, etc it's a mixed bag when you are dealing with pandemic behavioral changes do they have real models for all that?
It's not just about mortality rates. The other problem is hospitalizations. If you get in a bad car accident, get a bad infection, or have a pregnancy go bad you want an ICU bed not occupied by someone drowning from COVID. I expect most of these mortality rates are from places that didn't have their hospital systems collapse and have to ration care. I think US is heading there in some states, then mortality will get closer to that hospitalization rate.
Excess mortality has to somehow account for reduced commuting, reduced regular medical visits, more domestic violence, etc it's a mixed bag when you are dealing with pandemic behavioral changes do they have real models for all that?
The same baseline problem holds for hospitalizations as well. Nobody knows how many hospital beds were occupied in the last 10 years. Evidence points to a strong decrease in hospital capacity in germany at least in the last 20 years. Talking about "collapse of hospital system" is very bad in my opinion. No data shows that this actually happened in the EU at least. Also keep in mind that there is always (year does not matter) some place on earth where a hospital may collapse. So bergamo (italy) for example is just anecdotal evidence.
On possibly reduced mortality by lockdown : OK, fair enough. I think you can see it in decreased car accidents in germany and also in seemingly low influenza associated deaths. But my theory is that influenza and sars2 are evolutionary competing for vulnerable individuals and sars2 seems to be winning right now. I saw a nice study showing this for several flu-like viruses a couple of years ago. But getting enough and clean data for problems like this is very hard.
I think the lockdown has almost nothing to do with the virus but is a strange reaction to increased pressure of globalization and digitalization on the societies as well as a global economic crisis. Maybe lockdown policies will stay for a long time. But not to protect us from a dangerous virus but to ease some kind of mass anxiety and to make us ready for a new kind of governance focused on ai, big data and techocracy.
On possibly reduced mortality by lockdown : OK, fair enough. I think you can see it in decreased car accidents in germany and also in seemingly low influenza associated deaths. But my theory is that influenza and sars2 are evolutionary competing for vulnerable individuals and sars2 seems to be winning right now. I saw a nice study showing this for several flu-like viruses a couple of years ago. But getting enough and clean data for problems like this is very hard.
I think the lockdown has almost nothing to do with the virus but is a strange reaction to increased pressure of globalization and digitalization on the societies as well as a global economic crisis. Maybe lockdown policies will stay for a long time. But not to protect us from a dangerous virus but to ease some kind of mass anxiety and to make us ready for a new kind of governance focused on ai, big data and techocracy.
Here in Buenos Aires, 2 months ago, we a big covid19 wave an we had more than 90% of occupation of the ICU beds, after delaying all the medical procedures that was possible to delay. It was not normal, because during the rest of the pandemic it was much smaller, and the government of the city, and the government of the province that controls most of the area of the extended metropolitan area were worried. (They also had different opinions about how strict should be the lockdown, so they blamed each other.)
In Austria there were multiple times that all planned operations have been postponed. This has never happened previously. I would present that as a clear case of this being a different situation.
I'm talking from the point of view that the lockdown measures managed to keep ICU capacity open which reduced our current excess mortality observed. As far as I've read ICU capacity dropped greatly in many countries over the past decades, but my thinking is that we can't easily argue the various lockdown measures were bad using figures like national excess mortality because our current measures don't share the same baseline as an unrestricted pandemic free society.
Everyone has had vastly different experiences with the virus which affects views of the lockdown and behaviors.
Within the first few months of it in the US lost 3 coworkers to it, 1 known personally all around the same time. No clear mortality rate at the time, lockdowns made sense to us, it was real, we stayed masked up and crazy isolated. By comparison to my father who knew no one affected at all for the first year or longer. So to everyone outside of NY and California or wherever it started it was a whole lot of nothing. Either anxiety of virus that wasn't nearby for the vulnerable or another media hype like Swine flu or Avian flu or MERS that never really hit.
I'm sure there are still plenty of people who haven't been directly affected by the actual virus just the restrictions, only know people who maybe had a positive test or a short fever with their kids. When people only get news loosely from posts on the internet I'm sure many ignore or miss the semi-regular pleas from doctors and nurses to take it seriously and keep the F out of the hospitals. Like one I recently saw from Florida.
I consider COVID a new killer in addition to flu, I assume flu vaccines actually work (imperfectly) to lessen symptoms and everyone's annual clichè claims that the vaccine makes them sick or does nothing is just repeating the same old shtick. To be fair I have no data to back that up that the influenza vaccine does anything but I think it just underscores the vague distrust of medicine floating about. I'm almost a scientist and optimistically drink the koolaid and get my flu shot annual and trust that government fda, cdc, whatever generally does want medicines to actually work to keep people working.
"to ease some kind of mass anxiety and to make us ready for a new kind of governance focused on ai, big data and techocracy."
I don't usually go along with these things that sound like grand control conspiracies.
The anxiety about globalization and digitization is probably part of all the conspiracy thinking. Globalization is moving what used to be semi livable jobs out and replacing livable wage work with software engineering and advanced degree jobs or rent seeking almost exclusively. Everyone else is getting squeezed by big corps, franchise contracts vs minimum wage, high tech gear with no right to repair, etc. Grand control conspiracies in my mind are a weird commiserating hope that the world sucks on purpose because some elite levers of power are making it that way when really the world sucks because a bunch of simple systems chasing money or power are making a big complicated mess the crushed the unlucky under the cruel invisible hand of the market.
On the other hand hearing vaguely about Turing being part of a team successfully handling details from the cracked enigma machine to steer WWII without letting Nazis realize the code was broken seems to give credit to the idea that the knowledge collected by agencies like the NSA could be used by geniuses around the world to manipulate things. But if they exist they do a great job making governments look dumb...
Sorry this turned into word spaghetti.
Everyone has had vastly different experiences with the virus which affects views of the lockdown and behaviors.
Within the first few months of it in the US lost 3 coworkers to it, 1 known personally all around the same time. No clear mortality rate at the time, lockdowns made sense to us, it was real, we stayed masked up and crazy isolated. By comparison to my father who knew no one affected at all for the first year or longer. So to everyone outside of NY and California or wherever it started it was a whole lot of nothing. Either anxiety of virus that wasn't nearby for the vulnerable or another media hype like Swine flu or Avian flu or MERS that never really hit.
I'm sure there are still plenty of people who haven't been directly affected by the actual virus just the restrictions, only know people who maybe had a positive test or a short fever with their kids. When people only get news loosely from posts on the internet I'm sure many ignore or miss the semi-regular pleas from doctors and nurses to take it seriously and keep the F out of the hospitals. Like one I recently saw from Florida.
I consider COVID a new killer in addition to flu, I assume flu vaccines actually work (imperfectly) to lessen symptoms and everyone's annual clichè claims that the vaccine makes them sick or does nothing is just repeating the same old shtick. To be fair I have no data to back that up that the influenza vaccine does anything but I think it just underscores the vague distrust of medicine floating about. I'm almost a scientist and optimistically drink the koolaid and get my flu shot annual and trust that government fda, cdc, whatever generally does want medicines to actually work to keep people working.
"to ease some kind of mass anxiety and to make us ready for a new kind of governance focused on ai, big data and techocracy."
I don't usually go along with these things that sound like grand control conspiracies.
The anxiety about globalization and digitization is probably part of all the conspiracy thinking. Globalization is moving what used to be semi livable jobs out and replacing livable wage work with software engineering and advanced degree jobs or rent seeking almost exclusively. Everyone else is getting squeezed by big corps, franchise contracts vs minimum wage, high tech gear with no right to repair, etc. Grand control conspiracies in my mind are a weird commiserating hope that the world sucks on purpose because some elite levers of power are making it that way when really the world sucks because a bunch of simple systems chasing money or power are making a big complicated mess the crushed the unlucky under the cruel invisible hand of the market.
On the other hand hearing vaguely about Turing being part of a team successfully handling details from the cracked enigma machine to steer WWII without letting Nazis realize the code was broken seems to give credit to the idea that the knowledge collected by agencies like the NSA could be used by geniuses around the world to manipulate things. But if they exist they do a great job making governments look dumb...
Sorry this turned into word spaghetti.
Mass anxiety is not a conspiracy theory but rather a measurable social effect. See social cooling.
I didn't say there is somebody controlling or forcing the population into technocracy. What I meant is that it is inevitable to some degree that tech will continue to shape our society in unexpected and unintended ways.
Even if I did. Nothing is wrong with good conspiracy theories. Sometimes they turn out to be true.
I didn't say there is somebody controlling or forcing the population into technocracy. What I meant is that it is inevitable to some degree that tech will continue to shape our society in unexpected and unintended ways.
Even if I did. Nothing is wrong with good conspiracy theories. Sometimes they turn out to be true.
As mentioned in the article Sweden is part of EUROMOMO that tracks excess mortality which doesn't measure if someone died from covid or from negative effects of a lockdown but simply that they died.
Even though it's downplayed in the article Sweden had significant excess mortality in the spring of 2020 and at the turn of 2020-2021 compared to other countries like Norway and Finland that are used as benchmarks in the article.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
Even though it's downplayed in the article Sweden had significant excess mortality in the spring of 2020 and at the turn of 2020-2021 compared to other countries like Norway and Finland that are used as benchmarks in the article.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
> There are hundrets of new words invented around a common frame of reality in the last year. Everybody uses these words that nobody would understand nor use <=2019.
For example?
For example?
In germany at least... Maybe it is very different elsewhere... I hope so...
> In germany at least
For example?
For example?
Chin diaper
So don't criticise the government and their experts if you can't do better? Sorry, I expect them to do much better than me, at least.
> Being helpful takes a whole other kind of person
^ this sounds like an ad-hom
> Being helpful takes a whole other kind of person
^ this sounds like an ad-hom
This article is cherry-picking. There are good reasons why people often compare Sweden with similar neighboring countries like Denmark and Norway. The less similar the compared countries are, the more additional factors need to be taken into account: health systems, compliance levels, population density, population habits and frequency of contacts, how they deal with elderly and how often young and older people mix, economics, and so on and so forth.
Experts will provide thorough analysis of fatality rates and the effectiveness of healthcare measures, but it will take a while and I'd rather wait a few years until emotions have cooled down and this is no longer such a "political issue" (most of it is not, but some people chose to make it one). Personally, I'm quite happy with how my host country Portugal dealt with the crisis.
Experts will provide thorough analysis of fatality rates and the effectiveness of healthcare measures, but it will take a while and I'd rather wait a few years until emotions have cooled down and this is no longer such a "political issue" (most of it is not, but some people chose to make it one). Personally, I'm quite happy with how my host country Portugal dealt with the crisis.
[deleted]
It's humorous to me that you're dismissing this particular criticism of the Western media's "global think" COVID response in the same exact way that the media and the experts have been dismissing criticism for their repeated contradictions and invalid causation resulting from inability to correctly correlate a lot of COVID data. Additionally, this article isn't written to share suggestions. It's to demonstrate that there are more than one way to handle a crisis that nobody knows how to deal with and instead of pointing fingers and blaming we should be looking at data.
> It's to demonstrate that there are more than one way to handle a crisis that nobody knows how to deal with
This the article doesn't succeed in doing. It's so focussed on the rhetorical aspects of rubbing the nose of MSM in the failure of their claims, which in and of itself is OK, that it doesn't invest enough to succeed in its attempts to argue for its claims beyond that. While I narrowly agree with many of the criticisms, I don't think the article justifies any wider conclusions beyond "be skeptical of media narratives". I'm not upvoting this story.
This the article doesn't succeed in doing. It's so focussed on the rhetorical aspects of rubbing the nose of MSM in the failure of their claims, which in and of itself is OK, that it doesn't invest enough to succeed in its attempts to argue for its claims beyond that. While I narrowly agree with many of the criticisms, I don't think the article justifies any wider conclusions beyond "be skeptical of media narratives". I'm not upvoting this story.
This article is being dismissed because it is not a good-faith question, nor is it being asked out of an honest curiosity.
Same, and this is my problem with almost all that want mandates to end: what is the proposed solution, then?
Also, to me at least there is very clear motivation for governments to keep people alive and profit motive for vaccine manufacturers to make vaccines that work.
Unfortunately these days we seem to live in a world where 100% effort is put into criticizing actions and 0% into searching for a better solution.
Also, to me at least there is very clear motivation for governments to keep people alive and profit motive for vaccine manufacturers to make vaccines that work.
Unfortunately these days we seem to live in a world where 100% effort is put into criticizing actions and 0% into searching for a better solution.
The assumption that there must be a solution, and if someone isn't presenting one then they're a bad and unhelpful person, is the fallacy at the root of a lot of these problems. It is possible for problems to exist that people, and especially governments, cannot solve, or for which all the "solutions" are worse than the problem. Pointing out when that seems to be the case is not problematic, and in fact is a valuable service that should be praised, exactly because so many people get stuck in this mental rut of "if you don't have a solution you shouldn't speak at all".
If we want to ask the question what Sweden actually did, the answer is a bit more traditional in terms of science and a bit less interesting for anyone including the media.
Covid infections are not evenly spread. The most vulnerable people are not evenly spread, as is high risk areas.
Sweden did shut down and restrict a lot of those things. The elder care was compared to prison, with people doing "prison breaks" through open windows. Sports, bath houses, concerts, and similar places were closed down. People were strongly discouraged from using mass transit. Infection were still located mostly in hot zones around the large cities, in general where the large concentration of elderly care is located, and those working there had the full setup with mask and face protection and gloves and so on.
To me it seems like the different strategy can be classified as either targeted or generalized. Sweden went with a mostly targeted approach, although not as effective as it could have been since it was initially a bit delayed.
One other major decision that the Swedish government did was to remove the so called "karensdag". Before the pandemic people who got sick had to go without pay for the first day of the sickness, a measure that was likely there to discourage people from falsely calling in sick. By removing it they made it very clear to people to stay at home if they feel sick, with only 20% reduction in pay if you call in sick.
Covid infections are not evenly spread. The most vulnerable people are not evenly spread, as is high risk areas.
Sweden did shut down and restrict a lot of those things. The elder care was compared to prison, with people doing "prison breaks" through open windows. Sports, bath houses, concerts, and similar places were closed down. People were strongly discouraged from using mass transit. Infection were still located mostly in hot zones around the large cities, in general where the large concentration of elderly care is located, and those working there had the full setup with mask and face protection and gloves and so on.
To me it seems like the different strategy can be classified as either targeted or generalized. Sweden went with a mostly targeted approach, although not as effective as it could have been since it was initially a bit delayed.
One other major decision that the Swedish government did was to remove the so called "karensdag". Before the pandemic people who got sick had to go without pay for the first day of the sickness, a measure that was likely there to discourage people from falsely calling in sick. By removing it they made it very clear to people to stay at home if they feel sick, with only 20% reduction in pay if you call in sick.
The point about "karensdag" isn't quite true as the max compensation for it is significantly lower than 80% of your salary (afaik it's 810 SEK for that day).
Didn't know that. 810 SEK for a day after tax represent a 80% monthly salary of around 30k before tax if my math is right, which is slightly lower than the median income which is 32k. That might be significant lower than for most people on HN. It would be interesting to know how they determined that number and how many people that requests the money are hitting the max.
Not only that. The government also took over the payment of the first 14 days of sick pay - previously paid by the employer.
Nevertheless the titular question deserves to be raised. We heard no end of derision for Sweden's outlier approach when they were having a rough time of it, but now things are better - radio silence. Why? What is behind this?
Similarly, the fact that yet again in a thread on this topic, perfectly reasonable comments are being downvoted to oblivion, should give everyone serious cause for concern about the way things are going.
Similarly, the fact that yet again in a thread on this topic, perfectly reasonable comments are being downvoted to oblivion, should give everyone serious cause for concern about the way things are going.
> but now things are better - radio silence. Why?
Because it’s expected in a highly vaccinated population.
Because it’s expected in a highly vaccinated population.
Israel and UK are highly vaccinated, but their things are pretty far from being better.
I don't have the numbers handy for the U.K. I'm copy pasting what I dredged up for an earlier comment on the comparison with Israel.
As of Sep. 1, 82% of eligible Swedes have had one shot, and 70% are fully vaccinated. Sweden seems to be close to, if not already at, the coveted herd immunity by vaccination. In comparison, in Israel, 65% have had one shot and only 60% are fully vaccinated (a smidge over half of those 3x).
As of Sep. 1, 82% of eligible Swedes have had one shot, and 70% are fully vaccinated. Sweden seems to be close to, if not already at, the coveted herd immunity by vaccination. In comparison, in Israel, 65% have had one shot and only 60% are fully vaccinated (a smidge over half of those 3x).
> 82% of eligible Swedes have had one shot, and 70% are fully vaccinated
You should compare eligible to eligible, not 82% of eligible Swedes to 65% of all Israelis.
In Israel, "eligible" includes being over 12 years old (the vaccines aren't approved for younger children yet), and according to NPR, as of a month ago "78% of eligible Israelis over 12 years old are vaccinated."
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029628...
You should compare eligible to eligible, not 82% of eligible Swedes to 65% of all Israelis.
In Israel, "eligible" includes being over 12 years old (the vaccines aren't approved for younger children yet), and according to NPR, as of a month ago "78% of eligible Israelis over 12 years old are vaccinated."
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029628...
I am taking data from Google search page, it claims it took it from Our World On Data.
Sweden: 61.9% of population fully vaccinated, Israel: 61.6% of population fully vaccinated. Those numbers are pretty much the same.
I think your error was to compare % of elegible Swedes and % of Israel population.
Sweden: 61.9% of population fully vaccinated, Israel: 61.6% of population fully vaccinated. Those numbers are pretty much the same.
I think your error was to compare % of elegible Swedes and % of Israel population.
Anyway, I still think that Israel is highly vaccinated. If I sort Google data by % of population vaccinated, I see typical result is 70%-75%, bar microscopic countries like San Marino or Malta. Undervaccinated countries like Argentina or Brazil are at 35%-45%.
Israel was among the first countries to reach a vaccinated majority in March 2021, thats likely where this common wisdom comes from. but since then it appears that the vaccination rate has stagnated.
From Aug 20, "That means only 58% of Israel's total citizenry is fully vaccinated. [1]"
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029628...
From Aug 20, "That means only 58% of Israel's total citizenry is fully vaccinated. [1]"
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029628...
> Nevertheless the titular question deserves to be raised. We heard no end of derision for Sweden's outlier approach when they were having a rough time of it, but now things are better - radio silence. Why? What is behind this?
Things are better due to vaccinations having been administered fairly successfully.
It would be unwise to accept the numbers presented in this article without any skepticism, in particular given that the author is very transparent about their agenda (discredit mask usage). The numbers are very cherry-picked to precisely fit their argument.
First off - herd immunity was never the strategy to combat COVID-19 in Sweden. We had some forms of restrictions, we mostly just strayed from the 'majority' of countries, if you will, by not mandating that some businesses shut down, and by not making mask usage mandatory. Notably, we also do not mandate quarantine for arriving travelers - we merely encourage it.
Sweden, their response to COVID-19 and the results of that response are most accurately discussed in the context of our close neighbours. It would be inaccurate to measure against other countries with wildly differing cultures and economic situations, it's making too much of an apples to oranges comparison. The death rate numbers in that context (which as you may note are conveniently left out by the author) speak for themselves - Swedens death rate per capita is around 3 times as high as the next neighbor, Denmark (1434/million vs 449/million), 7 times as high as Finland (190/million) and 9 times as high as Norway (157/million). These numbers should be expected to more or less converge now that we have vaccinated at fairly similar rates, and hence comparisons of recent numbers, as made in the article, is fairly useless.
Things are better due to vaccinations having been administered fairly successfully.
It would be unwise to accept the numbers presented in this article without any skepticism, in particular given that the author is very transparent about their agenda (discredit mask usage). The numbers are very cherry-picked to precisely fit their argument.
First off - herd immunity was never the strategy to combat COVID-19 in Sweden. We had some forms of restrictions, we mostly just strayed from the 'majority' of countries, if you will, by not mandating that some businesses shut down, and by not making mask usage mandatory. Notably, we also do not mandate quarantine for arriving travelers - we merely encourage it.
Sweden, their response to COVID-19 and the results of that response are most accurately discussed in the context of our close neighbours. It would be inaccurate to measure against other countries with wildly differing cultures and economic situations, it's making too much of an apples to oranges comparison. The death rate numbers in that context (which as you may note are conveniently left out by the author) speak for themselves - Swedens death rate per capita is around 3 times as high as the next neighbor, Denmark (1434/million vs 449/million), 7 times as high as Finland (190/million) and 9 times as high as Norway (157/million). These numbers should be expected to more or less converge now that we have vaccinated at fairly similar rates, and hence comparisons of recent numbers, as made in the article, is fairly useless.
> Nevertheless the titular question deserves to be raised
Does it though?
Or is it "just asking questions" about the competence of experts and "the media"?
Does it though?
Or is it "just asking questions" about the competence of experts and "the media"?
What's wrong with asking questions about the competence (and honesty) of experts and "the media"?
Asking questions is obviously fine. "Just asking questions" is a specific bad-faith rhetorical tactic: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Nothing is wrong with a good-faith question asked out of an honest curiosity.
Have you looked at which countries were identified as high risk back in April 16 2020?
https://www.newsfirst.lk/2020/04/16/sri-lanka-ranked-16th-am...
Then compared it to actual deaths?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
Have you looked at which countries were identified as high risk back in April 16 2020?
https://www.newsfirst.lk/2020/04/16/sri-lanka-ranked-16th-am...
Then compared it to actual deaths?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
[deleted]
we only ever hear about another country when they're doing worse as it's a good way for politicians to boast about their own strategies.
talk about a hard-to-take-seriously, unhelful comment, at the top no less... so reactionary, no suggestions, just complaints... perhaps just a little charity would suggest that the mere framing of a problem helps people further frame solutions, that more than one post just might be warranted for such an encompassing topic.
in any case, rather than obsessing over irrelevant minutiae as the mediopolitical machine has done over the past 2 years to their own substantial benefit, what we should have done is simple: (1) quarantine the elderly with their caregivers (well-supported/-compensated, on a rotating basis), (2) be mindful only of long, close indoor exhaust-sharing (not incidental/public contact), and (3) quarantine when sick. but otherwise, get on with life absent economic ravagement, mass psychosocial injury, increased socioeconomic inequality, and depressed health and welfare. then when the vaccines came, (4) supply (not mandate) them to the vulnerable and the risk-averse.
this is basically what sweden did except for #1, which is where their mortality rates took a big hit. this approach is well supported by the available scientific evidence, unlike most of what we did, but it has no mediopolitical support, which is why it's so woefully under-considered and under-recommended.
in any case, rather than obsessing over irrelevant minutiae as the mediopolitical machine has done over the past 2 years to their own substantial benefit, what we should have done is simple: (1) quarantine the elderly with their caregivers (well-supported/-compensated, on a rotating basis), (2) be mindful only of long, close indoor exhaust-sharing (not incidental/public contact), and (3) quarantine when sick. but otherwise, get on with life absent economic ravagement, mass psychosocial injury, increased socioeconomic inequality, and depressed health and welfare. then when the vaccines came, (4) supply (not mandate) them to the vulnerable and the risk-averse.
this is basically what sweden did except for #1, which is where their mortality rates took a big hit. this approach is well supported by the available scientific evidence, unlike most of what we did, but it has no mediopolitical support, which is why it's so woefully under-considered and under-recommended.
Does anyone actually believe that the testing, qualification and reporting processes and methods are equivalent across all of these different countries? It makes no sense. The for-profit hospitals in the USA have an incentive to maximize Covid numbers because they get reimbursed, while most national health systems are incented to keep the reported numbers low. Some countries have frequent, convenient, fast testing centers all over the place, other countries don't. Some countries have few repercussions for a worker with a positive test, for others it's a major inconvenience, so people avoid getting tested. The types of tests differ, as do the sensitivities. So many differences.
I'd find it much easier to read this if the author - who accuses media outlets of hyperbole - wasn't hyperbolic themselves, e.g. "Israel has been a media darling for doing exactly what they’re told by the groupthink mafia." Perhaps they have a point in there somewhere, but it reads like being cornered by the drunk "alternative thinker" at a university party.
Well, maybe it is a drunk "alternative thinker", but in front of his PC, not at a party...
It may be remarkable that Sweden is only the 40th in case-fatality rate, but this statistic has not one, but two "moving targets": first, the number of cases (which is probably why Peru has such a high rate - underreporting of cases) and second, the number of deaths (which every country handles differently - dying of Covid vs. dying with Covid etc.).
It may be remarkable that Sweden is only the 40th in case-fatality rate, but this statistic has not one, but two "moving targets": first, the number of cases (which is probably why Peru has such a high rate - underreporting of cases) and second, the number of deaths (which every country handles differently - dying of Covid vs. dying with Covid etc.).
I was living in Sweden at the beginning of the pandemic. I suspected that I had COVID multiple times and tried to get a test. The response I got from the Swedish healthcare system was: “it doesn't matter what you are infected with, just stay home”.
Even though the author does have a point, they overlook the fact that it's been much harder to get COVID tests in Sweden than the countries it is compared to in the blog post. Are these numbers normalised with respect to the number of tests performed? What about the number of tests on symptomatic vs. asymptomatic people?
Sweden's lack of action against the pandemic was not limited to just the lack of closure and mask mandates and so on. As far as I know, they never set up a proper test and trace system (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure about this) as they did in Israel or the UK. Of course their case numbers will be smaller.
Even though the author does have a point, they overlook the fact that it's been much harder to get COVID tests in Sweden than the countries it is compared to in the blog post. Are these numbers normalised with respect to the number of tests performed? What about the number of tests on symptomatic vs. asymptomatic people?
Sweden's lack of action against the pandemic was not limited to just the lack of closure and mask mandates and so on. As far as I know, they never set up a proper test and trace system (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure about this) as they did in Israel or the UK. Of course their case numbers will be smaller.
[deleted]
Agreed, there are a number of counterpoints never considered.
Another one: Israel population is 20x more dense than Sweden, which naturally would lead to more spread https://versus.com/en/israel-vs-sweden
Another one: Israel population is 20x more dense than Sweden, which naturally would lead to more spread https://versus.com/en/israel-vs-sweden
Why do you think population density matters? Does it matter that Swedish forests are large than Israeli deserts?
What might/probably matter(s) is the degree of urbanisation.
What might/probably matter(s) is the degree of urbanisation.
> Why do you think population density matters? What might/probably matter(s) is the degree of urbanisation.
Population density is a measure of urbanization. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make?
Population density is a measure of urbanization. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make?
> Population density is a measure of urbanization
Population density is not a measure of urbanization.
A country with a single city of 1M and outside it a desert of 1M sq km has a population density of around 1 person per square kilometer.
A country with a single city of 1M and outside it a desert of 10M sq/km has a density of around 0.1 person per square km.
A 1sq km city state with 1M people have 1M people per sq km!
All 3 these countries are 100% urbanized (no one lives in the countryside) and have the same population yet population density varies by four orders of magnitude.
Sweden has a high level of urbanization and a low population density. Or put another way: most people live in few places BUT the areas where people don’t live are large.
Population density is not a measure of urbanization.
A country with a single city of 1M and outside it a desert of 1M sq km has a population density of around 1 person per square kilometer.
A country with a single city of 1M and outside it a desert of 10M sq/km has a density of around 0.1 person per square km.
A 1sq km city state with 1M people have 1M people per sq km!
All 3 these countries are 100% urbanized (no one lives in the countryside) and have the same population yet population density varies by four orders of magnitude.
Sweden has a high level of urbanization and a low population density. Or put another way: most people live in few places BUT the areas where people don’t live are large.
It's not just that Israel is one of the most dense countries in the world.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
Tel Aviv is one of the most dense cities in the world.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/11/the-50-...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
Tel Aviv is one of the most dense cities in the world.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/11/the-50-...
No, population density is how many people live in a certain area. They can live spread out over the entire area (rural) or concentrated in cities and similar (urban).
Yes. So it's a measure that makes sense for a small region (e.g. a city). A very dense city with lots of people on commiuter trains (Tokyo) vs. a very sprawled city with lots of people in Cars (Houston) will behave very differently in a pandemic.
But in both those cases, it doesn't matter how much unpopulated land there is outside the cities! That is - the population density of a whole country is a completely useless and irrelevant measure when it comes to the pandemic. Urbanization is also a blunt measurement, but at least it's better than density.
In the end, it's all about human contact and movement patterns. Here you can compare a city like Stockholm which has a very large service economy with people working from home during the pandemic (good) with a city of the same size and density in a poorer country with a larger part of the economy depending on manufacturing or services direct human interaction. It's going to fare worse than Stockholm.
The problem with Stockholm was put very simply that there is a large chunk of the population that lives in cramped working conditions, doesn't have private cars and that's immigrants in a few suburbs. They drive taxis, buses or work in other areas with human contacts. They also have disproportionately more comorbidites. Sadly, they are also overrepresented in elderly care work, so the grooup most severely affected also works closely with the most at-risk group. Finally, to add insult to injury the elderly care system has been progressively dismantled, leading to staff shortages and poor working conditions.
So the picture of the early stage of the pandemic in stockholm is basically this: An elderly care worker lives with a large extended family in cramped conditions. He or she has to take public transport to several different care homes, sometimes within a single day to work, despite the fact that there are active Covid outbreaks in some of the care homes and not in others. When there are outbreaks in the care homes, there is no possibility to isolate the sick from the other residents.
But in both those cases, it doesn't matter how much unpopulated land there is outside the cities! That is - the population density of a whole country is a completely useless and irrelevant measure when it comes to the pandemic. Urbanization is also a blunt measurement, but at least it's better than density.
In the end, it's all about human contact and movement patterns. Here you can compare a city like Stockholm which has a very large service economy with people working from home during the pandemic (good) with a city of the same size and density in a poorer country with a larger part of the economy depending on manufacturing or services direct human interaction. It's going to fare worse than Stockholm.
The problem with Stockholm was put very simply that there is a large chunk of the population that lives in cramped working conditions, doesn't have private cars and that's immigrants in a few suburbs. They drive taxis, buses or work in other areas with human contacts. They also have disproportionately more comorbidites. Sadly, they are also overrepresented in elderly care work, so the grooup most severely affected also works closely with the most at-risk group. Finally, to add insult to injury the elderly care system has been progressively dismantled, leading to staff shortages and poor working conditions.
So the picture of the early stage of the pandemic in stockholm is basically this: An elderly care worker lives with a large extended family in cramped conditions. He or she has to take public transport to several different care homes, sometimes within a single day to work, despite the fact that there are active Covid outbreaks in some of the care homes and not in others. When there are outbreaks in the care homes, there is no possibility to isolate the sick from the other residents.
He's saying that Sweden is larger but that you can expect the same population density in places where people live, i.e. cities, so just raw national population density is not a good metric.
I don't know if it's true, mind you.
I don't know if it's true, mind you.
No. The urbanization of Sweden is 90 percent compared 93 percent in Israel. Definitely no 20 times density.
The distinction is one of granularity.
What matters is how many people you can transmit the disease to. If population density is high then you are crossing paths with a larger number of people every day then compared to a more population density.
What matters is the interaction cross section.
What matters is the interaction cross section.
Population density is meaningful only locally... so a country such as australia can have very low population density nationally, but a high one in one of the large cities.
Population densities of both Jerusalem and Stockholm are high enough for covid to spread fast, and forrests and deserts are empty enough to make it hard for covid to spread. Averageas are meaningless here, because even statisticians can drown in a river with average depth of 0.5m.
Population densities of both Jerusalem and Stockholm are high enough for covid to spread fast, and forrests and deserts are empty enough to make it hard for covid to spread. Averageas are meaningless here, because even statisticians can drown in a river with average depth of 0.5m.
Welcome to Simpson's Paradox
At the start of the pandemic there was little-to-no testing in Sweden, but since autumn 2020 it has expanded and scaled significantly. We have drive-thru tests as well as home-delivered tests, free of charge. I used them a number of times, and I could usually book a test 30 mins prior. For non PCR tests, i.e. antigen tests, they are available in all pharmacies, and most people have stocked up on those as well.
Regarding contact tracing - I'm not aware of anything, but Telia does check aggregate people movement across different regions, and report findings to the health authorities, see https://business.teliacompany.com/crowd-insights
Regarding contact tracing - I'm not aware of anything, but Telia does check aggregate people movement across different regions, and report findings to the health authorities, see https://business.teliacompany.com/crowd-insights
When did you try to get tested? I booked a test in June 2020 and got it done the same day. Same thing this spring, I started feeling symptoms around lunch and had no problem getting a test done in the afternoon.
And? I get the test argument when you look at number of cases, government policies vary so much on that topic that it's useless to compare countries, but the article brings up number of deaths a lot.
Why does it matter if tests are readily available or not when you compare death rates? At the end of the day, if the policy is to say "assume that everybody is sick and just be careful/sensible" I don't see how more tests would change anything.
Why does it matter if tests are readily available or not when you compare death rates? At the end of the day, if the policy is to say "assume that everybody is sick and just be careful/sensible" I don't see how more tests would change anything.
I guess it helps to know where/when you can stop assuming everyone else is a seething virus cauldron.
Or from more testing... Peace of mind for the testee, social liability coverage for self or employer, knowing if infections are increasing or not, vaccines blocking transmission or not, death rate lags by a few weeks for anyone hoping to see a quick change from a new/killed policy.
Or from more testing... Peace of mind for the testee, social liability coverage for self or employer, knowing if infections are increasing or not, vaccines blocking transmission or not, death rate lags by a few weeks for anyone hoping to see a quick change from a new/killed policy.
Simply because the media are promoting government interventions. Why? Because without authoritarian practices such as lockdowns, then health passes, it would be impossible to mandate vaccine(s) injection. The influence of mainstream media I would hope doesn't have to be demonstrated. Who influences them dictates the side they are taking, and that is to mandate and control billions of people's health and collect public money to provide scalable and very profitable treatments.
Quite a few names involved in the industry of vaccines have been campainging for years to get inoculations worldwide, for unnamed diseases, but announcing that it was coming. Here we have a highly contagious flu disease that kills a ratio of the infected people, the perfect horse to ride.
Never in my life would I have believed that nearly all media, governments and then even people to become obsessed, hysterical and imposing their views on people's health.
Let's not forget what this virus is. A highly transmissible bug that has a 3 to 6% chance to be lethal, in an aging population, with significant rates of diabetes, obesity and cardio vascular issues.
Of course the media wants to forget about Sweeden. It went against their objective to increase health control on citizens.
Quite a few names involved in the industry of vaccines have been campainging for years to get inoculations worldwide, for unnamed diseases, but announcing that it was coming. Here we have a highly contagious flu disease that kills a ratio of the infected people, the perfect horse to ride.
Never in my life would I have believed that nearly all media, governments and then even people to become obsessed, hysterical and imposing their views on people's health.
Let's not forget what this virus is. A highly transmissible bug that has a 3 to 6% chance to be lethal, in an aging population, with significant rates of diabetes, obesity and cardio vascular issues.
Of course the media wants to forget about Sweeden. It went against their objective to increase health control on citizens.
Long before the pandemic I had a coworker who basically did all the things that are the new norm today:
1. Don't open doors per handle/with hands
2. wear masks in public transit
3. no handshakes just fist bumps
4. if (1) wasn't possible or after (3), always pulling out the small bottle of hand sanitizer
Before the pandemic, in a western, non-medical context, this was clearly considered odd and OCD.
The fear ignited at the onset of the pandemic turned many of us in to OCD patients. Into OCD-societies.
Remember those dead bodies piling up on Wuhan streets? Or the chaotic scenes from Italian hospitals? Those videos are all debunked for along time, so "Why Does No One Ever Talk About those Shock-Videos form China and Italy anymore?" is a question connected to the author's question:
"Why Does No One Ever Talk About Sweden Anymore?"
The answer: "unmitigated, renegade disaster of Sweden’s policy"
No one talks about Sweden (or those videos) anymore, because the lies have become too big to fail.
This pandemical policy desaster across so many "enlightened" countries documents a failure of societal cohesiveness that cannot be explained alone with the biased newsrooms. It stems from vast pockets of society (mostly the upper echelons) that have lost fundamental understanding of basic human rights of their neighbours.
In so far, not only seems Sweden's Covid response more successful. But the foundations of their society much more sound.
1. Don't open doors per handle/with hands
2. wear masks in public transit
3. no handshakes just fist bumps
4. if (1) wasn't possible or after (3), always pulling out the small bottle of hand sanitizer
Before the pandemic, in a western, non-medical context, this was clearly considered odd and OCD.
The fear ignited at the onset of the pandemic turned many of us in to OCD patients. Into OCD-societies.
Remember those dead bodies piling up on Wuhan streets? Or the chaotic scenes from Italian hospitals? Those videos are all debunked for along time, so "Why Does No One Ever Talk About those Shock-Videos form China and Italy anymore?" is a question connected to the author's question:
"Why Does No One Ever Talk About Sweden Anymore?"
The answer: "unmitigated, renegade disaster of Sweden’s policy"
No one talks about Sweden (or those videos) anymore, because the lies have become too big to fail.
This pandemical policy desaster across so many "enlightened" countries documents a failure of societal cohesiveness that cannot be explained alone with the biased newsrooms. It stems from vast pockets of society (mostly the upper echelons) that have lost fundamental understanding of basic human rights of their neighbours.
In so far, not only seems Sweden's Covid response more successful. But the foundations of their society much more sound.
I'm sympathetic with his case against the reaction to Sweden's policies, but his assertions that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of masks are similarly harebrained.
I will be very interested, in ten years or so, to read a book explaining covid. There are some strange patterns to it that I don't think are well understood - like why countries like Israel can enact strong countermeasures and vaccines and still suffer high death rates. Maybe someone understands the disease well right now, but I certainly don't. I hope time will settle and clear the mystery.
IANAD (I am not a doctor). However, common sense tells you that "cause of death" is impossible to pin down in all cases, because you don't have the counterfactual ("if they did not have COVID, would they have died anyway?"). The official "cause of death" is quite often "congestive heart failure" but that's just the last thing that happened to them.
For that reason, "excess deaths" is about the best we can do, being an aggregate number. We don't need to decide if they died "of COVID" or "with COVID." We have a distribution of the number of deaths, there's no issue of whether someone is dead or not, and it has a mean and SD.
It's also common sense that, whatever other variables you bring in, "persons per household" is a primary variable. Sustained contact with an infected person just has to be a prime cause of the spread of a communicable disease. "Population density" is probably a weaker proxy for that.
For that reason, "excess deaths" is about the best we can do, being an aggregate number. We don't need to decide if they died "of COVID" or "with COVID." We have a distribution of the number of deaths, there's no issue of whether someone is dead or not, and it has a mean and SD.
It's also common sense that, whatever other variables you bring in, "persons per household" is a primary variable. Sustained contact with an infected person just has to be a prime cause of the spread of a communicable disease. "Population density" is probably a weaker proxy for that.
FT has a good one-stop place to compare case and death data between countries and US states:
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areas=tha&are...
What's hard to line up are the changes in policy, behavior, vaccination, and variant mix that obviously have a big effect on the dynamics of the epidemic. I suspect it'll be quite a while before that data is compiled in a form that allows really strong analysis.
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areas=tha&are...
What's hard to line up are the changes in policy, behavior, vaccination, and variant mix that obviously have a big effect on the dynamics of the epidemic. I suspect it'll be quite a while before that data is compiled in a form that allows really strong analysis.
Looking at the other articles on the substack, it reads a lot like propaganda in the other direction, defending Ron Desantis in FL but attacking CA for its mask mandanes...kind of blantant likely partisan propaganda.
Supposedly we can understand anything through science, and change or control the world any way we want using technology. The thing nobody wants to accept is that we (our technology, our science, our institutions) aren't in control after all. Religion, which science & technology kind of replaced, is out of fashion. But it did give us something we lack now, which is the humility of knowing we weren't in charge. In the religious viewpoint there was something out there controlling the world that wasn't us. That's at least closer to the truth, which is that in fact nobody is in charge! Not a god and certainly not the people who claim to be in charge. Have a nice day!
Sweden sacrificed ~20k elderly people to covid for no actual gain. Very questionable for a society that claims to be a "humanitarian superpower"
I'd say it demonstrates really well the way the country is heading: more inequality, people not caring what happens to each other, just in general America v2 but with a different language.
I'd say it demonstrates really well the way the country is heading: more inequality, people not caring what happens to each other, just in general America v2 but with a different language.
To all people here that point the tone of the article : let me tell you this kind of article is a breath of fresh air when living in some european countries that seem to be completely stuck in a race to who's going to put more pressure and state control on their people.
We've been shocked at chinese social rating system, but it looks like 2020 threw all our philosophical consideration on how subtle and delicate democracy is to the trash.
We've been shocked at chinese social rating system, but it looks like 2020 threw all our philosophical consideration on how subtle and delicate democracy is to the trash.
Look at the cumulative COVID-19 deaths:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
I really wish that the Swedish strategy was the answer; that would make future pandemics (and the rest of this one) a lot more pleasant. But alas.
I really wish that the Swedish strategy was the answer; that would make future pandemics (and the rest of this one) a lot more pleasant. But alas.
Sweden reports about 14700 COVID deaths and about 10.5M population. That's about 140 per 100,000.
Israel reports 7465 COVID deaths and a population of 9.8M. That's about 80 per 100,000.
Israel reports 7465 COVID deaths and a population of 9.8M. That's about 80 per 100,000.
The article can serve as an example of data manipulation from its incomplete presentation.
The very first graph don't show any country having lower death rate than Sweden, only those above it. Yet the crux of criticism of COVID response in Sweden is based upon the fact that its next door neighbours did better: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-deat...
The very first graph don't show any country having lower death rate than Sweden, only those above it. Yet the crux of criticism of COVID response in Sweden is based upon the fact that its next door neighbours did better: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-deat...
AnthonBerg(3)
I'd be happy to hear people talk about Sweden in depth. This is just a bunch of charts and hormones though.
Sweden presently has a very high vaccination rate. In particular, it’s higher than the antivax crowd’s favorite comparison country, Israel.
As of Sep. 1, 82% of eligible Swedes have had one shot, and 70% are fully vaccinated.
Sweden seems to be close to, if not already at, the coveted herd immunity by vaccination.
In comparison, in Israel, 65% have had one shot and only 60% are fully vaccinated (a smidge over half of those 3x).
And Sweden’s deaths per capita from the start of the pandemic are ~1434/1M compared to Israel’s ~824/1M.
Nobody talks about Sweden because its early response was an object lesson in what not to do. And the present situation confirms what we expect in a highly vaccinated population.
The Sweden > world nonsense is based on the oddest data cherry-picking.
As of Sep. 1, 82% of eligible Swedes have had one shot, and 70% are fully vaccinated.
Sweden seems to be close to, if not already at, the coveted herd immunity by vaccination.
In comparison, in Israel, 65% have had one shot and only 60% are fully vaccinated (a smidge over half of those 3x).
And Sweden’s deaths per capita from the start of the pandemic are ~1434/1M compared to Israel’s ~824/1M.
Nobody talks about Sweden because its early response was an object lesson in what not to do. And the present situation confirms what we expect in a highly vaccinated population.
The Sweden > world nonsense is based on the oddest data cherry-picking.
I live in Sweden and honestly, I'm glad I do. The rest of the world seems to have forgotten human rights, natural immunity, how to look up statistics, how viruses work etc.
We are going back into offices in October. The pandemic is over here, and it never was even very serious.
About 1500 people under 50 died of covid, from 10.2 million. That's a survival rate of 99.9995%.
If you count the older people, it's "only" 99.995%.
Some pandemic. I know it was bad in the US but most likely because the population is in poor health due to the country thinking poor people should eat shitty foods and never have any time outside of work.
I think the covid response in different countries shows a lot about how they view humans.
We are going back into offices in October. The pandemic is over here, and it never was even very serious.
About 1500 people under 50 died of covid, from 10.2 million. That's a survival rate of 99.9995%.
If you count the older people, it's "only" 99.995%.
Some pandemic. I know it was bad in the US but most likely because the population is in poor health due to the country thinking poor people should eat shitty foods and never have any time outside of work.
I think the covid response in different countries shows a lot about how they view humans.
I'm glad my home country that's a neighbor of Sweden got only 6% of the death count Sweden had.
I'm glad I can say with a good heart that my country took care of the old, including my own parents and grandparents. It's a real test of the country's values.
I'm glad I can say with a good heart that my country took care of the old, including my own parents and grandparents. It's a real test of the country's values.
Sweden did better than all neighbors in taking care of the old though.
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/#...
That is the life expectancy given 2020 years mortality. Neighboring old people died less of covid but died more of other causes. Note sure if you should see that as a win. And even if you do, maybe you should consider that many other factors in society are way more important than the covid response, it is a very minor factor as we can see here.
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/#...
That is the life expectancy given 2020 years mortality. Neighboring old people died less of covid but died more of other causes. Note sure if you should see that as a win. And even if you do, maybe you should consider that many other factors in society are way more important than the covid response, it is a very minor factor as we can see here.
The figures I can google quickly for Sweden are about 14,700 deaths out of 10,500,000 population. The corresponding survival rate is 99.86%. Do you have a source for the 99.995% figure?
And your comment shows a disdain for the elderly that is very much reflected in the treatment of the elderly in Sweden overall.
We put our elders in nursery home and visit them once a year if lucky. I think that is why the response is regarded as a success in Sweden. Older people dying is just a relief.
We put our elders in nursery home and visit them once a year if lucky. I think that is why the response is regarded as a success in Sweden. Older people dying is just a relief.
There are 2 kinds of people/governments during a pandemic: Those with okay parents, and those who need that inheritance/medical savings
On a serious note, were Sweden's larger deaths early on in the pandemic when the government could be given a pass thinking COVID would be more easily controlled than it was? Or was it a long slow crawl? It's not like it would be easy to move thousands of elderly out of nursing homes to control things anyway. Nursing homes are not anywhere close to isolation wards so it might have been inevitable outcome.
On a serious note, were Sweden's larger deaths early on in the pandemic when the government could be given a pass thinking COVID would be more easily controlled than it was? Or was it a long slow crawl? It's not like it would be easy to move thousands of elderly out of nursing homes to control things anyway. Nursing homes are not anywhere close to isolation wards so it might have been inevitable outcome.
How did this article from a blatant covid misinformation site (posted by an hours-old account) make it to the front page of HN?
The entire substance of this article is taking a single graph from Twitter and establishing that masks do nothing to stem the spread of covid. That’s it. That’s the whole post.
Do the regular rank and file posters on this website believe that covid was a massive global conspiracy? Entertaining this sort of clearly biased propaganda (the name of the blog is literally “Unmasked” and all the articles seem to start from the same premise of “covid precautions are unnecessary and harmful”) certainly makes this site look as if that’s the case.
I understand that this forum is generally very pro-business. Considering that this piece of propaganda serves a specific purpose of advocating for a reduction of covid measures, are the people here genuinely so invested in making money that they’ll believe and advocate for doing nothing to stop the spread of a deadly virus?
It looks like you do. I’m not saying that I personally think that you, the reader, is happy to allow a pandemic to spread unchecked in order to maximize your portfolio returns but I AM saying that the very fact that this made it to the front page reflects on this community.
From an outsider’s perspective, either HN has such a strong individualism bent that the community is willing to gamify mass death for profit, OR that it’s incredibly easy to artificially boost harmful propaganda on a well-funded, fully staffed website made by tech people for tech people.
It’s embarrassing either way.
The entire substance of this article is taking a single graph from Twitter and establishing that masks do nothing to stem the spread of covid. That’s it. That’s the whole post.
Do the regular rank and file posters on this website believe that covid was a massive global conspiracy? Entertaining this sort of clearly biased propaganda (the name of the blog is literally “Unmasked” and all the articles seem to start from the same premise of “covid precautions are unnecessary and harmful”) certainly makes this site look as if that’s the case.
I understand that this forum is generally very pro-business. Considering that this piece of propaganda serves a specific purpose of advocating for a reduction of covid measures, are the people here genuinely so invested in making money that they’ll believe and advocate for doing nothing to stop the spread of a deadly virus?
It looks like you do. I’m not saying that I personally think that you, the reader, is happy to allow a pandemic to spread unchecked in order to maximize your portfolio returns but I AM saying that the very fact that this made it to the front page reflects on this community.
From an outsider’s perspective, either HN has such a strong individualism bent that the community is willing to gamify mass death for profit, OR that it’s incredibly easy to artificially boost harmful propaganda on a well-funded, fully staffed website made by tech people for tech people.
It’s embarrassing either way.
While I understand (and maybe agree with) your point, one of the "official" reasons listed for why someone would upvote a post, is not the content of the post itself, but rather the discussion (which there seems to be a lot of).
Judging from the current top comments, it seems the general sentiment is that this post is incorrect and ignores a number of points.
Judging from the current top comments, it seems the general sentiment is that this post is incorrect and ignores a number of points.
Being familiar with how N95s differ from cloth masks in effectiveness against extended aerosol risks, it is reasonable to question the effectiveness of ‘masks’ worn by the general public indoors.
The fact that the public is still not widely informed about this is telling, since we have known since ~ July 2020 that this virus is aerosol stable for hours…
The fact that the public is still not widely informed about this is telling, since we have known since ~ July 2020 that this virus is aerosol stable for hours…
Wearing general mask provide more protection to others than wearer. It’s more effective at catching aerosol exiting your mouth and nose then preventing them from coming in. In terms of effectiveness i saw a study that put cotton 30%, blue surgery masks 60%, kn95 80%, n95 95%. So anything is better than nothing.
Those percentages are per unit time, so your safety can be measured in units of minutes or hours in a risk zone.
By far not going to work is a huge risk mitigation factor for most people (100% effective), which is why it is hard to decouple distancing from poorly worn cotton masks, which is mostly what happens here.
By far not going to work is a huge risk mitigation factor for most people (100% effective), which is why it is hard to decouple distancing from poorly worn cotton masks, which is mostly what happens here.
wearing mask is an independent variable when it comes to spread of covid. How close someone is to infected or for how long are other independent variables. Improving either of them would improve the results.
I care about the economy, because the economy is people. I support mask wearing and vaccination, in part because widespread use of those measures would make more oppressive restrictions (like forcing people to stay home) unnecessary and allow most human activity to continue uninterrupted. Prioritizing prosperity is fully compatible with taking the pandemic seriously!
> Do the regular rank and file posters on this website believe that covid was a massive global conspiracy?
I guess no.
> either HN has such a strong individualism bent that the community is willing to gamify mass death for profit, OR that it’s incredibly easy to artificially boost harmful propaganda
There is a third option. A lot of topics are discussed. We discussed from the Higgs's boson to the Em-Drive (but for some reason, nobody likes to discuss Giant Magnetoresistance). It's also interesting to discuss what is the best strategy during a pandemic.
I think it's too soon, and to get the answer we must wait like 10 years until the dust is settle, the government of each country changed so much that they are not covering theirs asses or using the death as an electoral weapon, and also get better computer models.
It's interesting that in the heat of the moment each country tried a different strategy, from almost complete lockdown to almost no lockdown. I remember trying the simulator in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27763873 The "full lockdown" is very tempting, but the money used there can be used to other thing, like giving food to poor people, in spite it's not an option in the simulator. It's a very though decision, and I'm relieved that I didn't have to take those hard decision in real life.
I guess no.
> either HN has such a strong individualism bent that the community is willing to gamify mass death for profit, OR that it’s incredibly easy to artificially boost harmful propaganda
There is a third option. A lot of topics are discussed. We discussed from the Higgs's boson to the Em-Drive (but for some reason, nobody likes to discuss Giant Magnetoresistance). It's also interesting to discuss what is the best strategy during a pandemic.
I think it's too soon, and to get the answer we must wait like 10 years until the dust is settle, the government of each country changed so much that they are not covering theirs asses or using the death as an electoral weapon, and also get better computer models.
It's interesting that in the heat of the moment each country tried a different strategy, from almost complete lockdown to almost no lockdown. I remember trying the simulator in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27763873 The "full lockdown" is very tempting, but the money used there can be used to other thing, like giving food to poor people, in spite it's not an option in the simulator. It's a very though decision, and I'm relieved that I didn't have to take those hard decision in real life.
[deleted]
Not sure what you mean a single graph from twitter? There are 6 graphs, a couple of bar charts and quite a lot of other data. And Sweden having a different policy that seems quite popular with Swedes had not much to do with portfolio returns as far as I can see.
By “substance” I meant “The most important part or idea of what is said or written; the essence or gist.” Additional graphs that support the presupposed conclusions are not some sort of contradiction.
Why was anyone talking about Sweden in the first place?
Because it was the only example of a developed nation whose health officials came out and said "given our circumstances, we think our country will be ok without anti-covid measures."
People who wanted (for a variety of reasons) to denounce anti-covid measures took those statements, stripped out the "given our circumstances" and said "see, Sweden thinks everyone will be ok without anti-covid measures."
The anti-covid groups, recognizing that nuance is doomed, did not respond by saying "Sweden might be ok, but we won't" and instead said "Sweden is wrong."
So why did people stop talking about it? Because the policy decisions have already been made. The political tool that is "Sweden says otherwise" isn't useful anymore.
Now obviously the academics and public policy experts have not stopped talking about Sweden (and the verdict is not even close to rendered), but since they are doing so out of the public eye it doesn't so much count.
So why should we have more public discussion about Sweden? It looks to me like this author believes it is evidence for the assertion "if the experts are struggling, the amateurs must be right." It is not. This kind of reasoning is virtually always the kind of justification someone comes up with when they need an explanation for why someone should trust a fringe conspiratorial theory of events over a mainstream expert-endorsed one.
Because it was the only example of a developed nation whose health officials came out and said "given our circumstances, we think our country will be ok without anti-covid measures."
People who wanted (for a variety of reasons) to denounce anti-covid measures took those statements, stripped out the "given our circumstances" and said "see, Sweden thinks everyone will be ok without anti-covid measures."
The anti-covid groups, recognizing that nuance is doomed, did not respond by saying "Sweden might be ok, but we won't" and instead said "Sweden is wrong."
So why did people stop talking about it? Because the policy decisions have already been made. The political tool that is "Sweden says otherwise" isn't useful anymore.
Now obviously the academics and public policy experts have not stopped talking about Sweden (and the verdict is not even close to rendered), but since they are doing so out of the public eye it doesn't so much count.
So why should we have more public discussion about Sweden? It looks to me like this author believes it is evidence for the assertion "if the experts are struggling, the amateurs must be right." It is not. This kind of reasoning is virtually always the kind of justification someone comes up with when they need an explanation for why someone should trust a fringe conspiratorial theory of events over a mainstream expert-endorsed one.
There were no Sweden-specific cirumstances that mattered. The belief that Sweden is somehow uniquely special or that it can only be compared to its neighbours is a tired, unconvincing talking point that must surely come mostly from people who have never actually been there.
Swedes are normal Europeans who live in normal cities in a normal western country, and the virus is tiny. To the extent Sweden is "different" to its neighbours it's only in things like the proportion of non-Swedes who live there, which it seems inherently raises their numbers relative to their more anti-immigration neighbours (given that COVID seems to hurt African immigrants more in all regions of the world including the USA).
"obviously the academics and public policy experts have not stopped talking about Sweden (and the verdict is not even close to rendered), but since they are doing so out of the public eye it doesn't so much count."
The academics and policy experts are refusing to talk about Sweden, because it reveals that they aren't really experts at all - just playing at being experts. It is easy to see this. Here's one of the only recent academic pronouncements on Sweden, published in Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9
Except it's not really recent at all. Despite being published in August the first sentence of the article is a false claim about public statistics and it goes downhill from there. The reason is, to build its argument it has to simply ignore all data from after July 2020. If it didn't then it couldn't possibly make the arguments it's trying to make. Also, it cherry picks its countries and its calculations aren't even consistent with each other. It's not science. It's policy advocacy pretending to be science. These people deserve to be raked over the coals in public because their credibility is zero.
Swedes are normal Europeans who live in normal cities in a normal western country, and the virus is tiny. To the extent Sweden is "different" to its neighbours it's only in things like the proportion of non-Swedes who live there, which it seems inherently raises their numbers relative to their more anti-immigration neighbours (given that COVID seems to hurt African immigrants more in all regions of the world including the USA).
"obviously the academics and public policy experts have not stopped talking about Sweden (and the verdict is not even close to rendered), but since they are doing so out of the public eye it doesn't so much count."
The academics and policy experts are refusing to talk about Sweden, because it reveals that they aren't really experts at all - just playing at being experts. It is easy to see this. Here's one of the only recent academic pronouncements on Sweden, published in Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9
Except it's not really recent at all. Despite being published in August the first sentence of the article is a false claim about public statistics and it goes downhill from there. The reason is, to build its argument it has to simply ignore all data from after July 2020. If it didn't then it couldn't possibly make the arguments it's trying to make. Also, it cherry picks its countries and its calculations aren't even consistent with each other. It's not science. It's policy advocacy pretending to be science. These people deserve to be raked over the coals in public because their credibility is zero.
...You do know that Sweden implemented more "mainstream" anti-covid measures as 2020 went on, right? A decision in July 2020 gave Swedish local authorities the right to shut down bars/restaurants. By Dec. 2020, the government was shutting down public facilities, putting mask mandates on public transportation, encouraging remote education/work, and further limiting groups in bars/restaurants.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03003930.2021.1...
So if the goal is to compare "no restrictions" to "restrictions", only amateurs would think you could use "all" the data from Sweden.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03003930.2021.1...
So if the goal is to compare "no restrictions" to "restrictions", only amateurs would think you could use "all" the data from Sweden.
Ah yes, you're right: professionals simply ignore any data that contradicts them. Only the amateurs are doing any actual science in epidemiology these days.
Sweden was never at any point as tough as most other countries, and even if they had adopted e.g. UK style measures afterwards (which they didn't), it wouldn't matter: they should have still ended up worse than other countries due to their early stance.
What actually happened is that Sweden has significantly lower per-capita COVID mortality than the EU average.
Seeing how desperately people try to rationalize this is fundamentally very depressing. Lockdowns do not work. Masks do not work. They have never worked. Swedes are not biologically different to Brits or the French. You don't actually need Sweden to see this, there are many other examples from the USA, e.g. the differences between North and South Dakota (no outcome differences, very different policies). Or just look at graphs of case curves. You cannot figure out from looking at cases when policies were changed, even though being able to do so was the only goal of the changes. These policies directly failed on their own terms, and no studies or inter-country comparisons are even needed to prove that.
Sweden was never at any point as tough as most other countries, and even if they had adopted e.g. UK style measures afterwards (which they didn't), it wouldn't matter: they should have still ended up worse than other countries due to their early stance.
What actually happened is that Sweden has significantly lower per-capita COVID mortality than the EU average.
Seeing how desperately people try to rationalize this is fundamentally very depressing. Lockdowns do not work. Masks do not work. They have never worked. Swedes are not biologically different to Brits or the French. You don't actually need Sweden to see this, there are many other examples from the USA, e.g. the differences between North and South Dakota (no outcome differences, very different policies). Or just look at graphs of case curves. You cannot figure out from looking at cases when policies were changed, even though being able to do so was the only goal of the changes. These policies directly failed on their own terms, and no studies or inter-country comparisons are even needed to prove that.
>What actually happened is that Sweden has significantly lower per-capita COVID mortality than the EU average.
Sweden is also significantly higher than all its immediate neighbors who have 1/3rd to 1/10th the mortality.
>These policies directly failed on their own terms, and no studies or inter-country comparisons are even needed to prove that.
...So we don't need to talk about Sweden after all?
>e.g. the differences between North and South Dakota (no outcome differences, very different policies).
North Dakota (with late lockdowns) beat South Dakota (no lockdowns) by about the same margin that Sweden beat the EU average (10~15%). Why is the difference "significant" for Sweden, but "nonexistent" for the Dakotas?
Sweden is also significantly higher than all its immediate neighbors who have 1/3rd to 1/10th the mortality.
>These policies directly failed on their own terms, and no studies or inter-country comparisons are even needed to prove that.
...So we don't need to talk about Sweden after all?
>e.g. the differences between North and South Dakota (no outcome differences, very different policies).
North Dakota (with late lockdowns) beat South Dakota (no lockdowns) by about the same margin that Sweden beat the EU average (10~15%). Why is the difference "significant" for Sweden, but "nonexistent" for the Dakotas?
We can talk about specific countries all day even though it's unnecessary (indeed, you can see the policies don't work just by examining case curves individually, without comparisons between them). But it's pointless. Everyone who claims Sweden doesn't disprove the scientific basis for lockdowns just comes up with a random new justification as each one is shot down. First it was "Sweden is different because of population density". That was dealt with. Then it was "Swedes don't like to be physically close to each other" (lol). That was dealt with. Then it was "actually Sweden was locked down even though everyone said they weren't". Now it's "but you can't compare Sweden to anywhere except Denmark and Norway". Etc.
The justifications here are based on working backwards from a desired conclusion, yet there's no rational way to do it. For instance, is this talking point "all its immediate neighbours", as you put it? Or just some of its neighbours? Because Sweden is also neighboured by some Baltic states, and if you include those, Sweden is no longer the worst in that little group. So the usual construct is "Scandinavian neighbours", not "all immediate". The incoherency of this claim is a good sign it's made up on the spot - data cherry picking, exactly what people aren't meant to do.
So. "Experts" said Sweden would suffer mass death from not locking down: 90,000 deaths predicted by the ICL model alone. There was no postulated Scandinavian Exception in any model or scenario. Nor has anyone presented any sort of mechanistic or biological explanation for how such an Exception should work. Instead, once their data disproved the underlying theory, people started desperately trying to retrofit the narrative to claim it actually a success rather than accept the truth that epidemiology is, as a field, so incompetent as to be fraudulent. Reality came nowhere near the predictions.
But, if you wish, just ignore Sweden (or Texas, or Florida, or the Dakotas) and present a methodology that reliably selects from case curve data alone the dates of policy changes. It cannot be done. But case data is ground truth: policy was justified on the grounds it would change the rate of infections. Because policy changed for everyone in a country on a single day, there should be very clear artificial changes in infection numbers a few days after that (it takes a few days for symptoms to develop and people to get tested). If you cannot reliably find such changes from the data, then the policies have failed by their own logic. Comparisons are irrelevant at that point because they weren't justified that way.
The justifications here are based on working backwards from a desired conclusion, yet there's no rational way to do it. For instance, is this talking point "all its immediate neighbours", as you put it? Or just some of its neighbours? Because Sweden is also neighboured by some Baltic states, and if you include those, Sweden is no longer the worst in that little group. So the usual construct is "Scandinavian neighbours", not "all immediate". The incoherency of this claim is a good sign it's made up on the spot - data cherry picking, exactly what people aren't meant to do.
So. "Experts" said Sweden would suffer mass death from not locking down: 90,000 deaths predicted by the ICL model alone. There was no postulated Scandinavian Exception in any model or scenario. Nor has anyone presented any sort of mechanistic or biological explanation for how such an Exception should work. Instead, once their data disproved the underlying theory, people started desperately trying to retrofit the narrative to claim it actually a success rather than accept the truth that epidemiology is, as a field, so incompetent as to be fraudulent. Reality came nowhere near the predictions.
But, if you wish, just ignore Sweden (or Texas, or Florida, or the Dakotas) and present a methodology that reliably selects from case curve data alone the dates of policy changes. It cannot be done. But case data is ground truth: policy was justified on the grounds it would change the rate of infections. Because policy changed for everyone in a country on a single day, there should be very clear artificial changes in infection numbers a few days after that (it takes a few days for symptoms to develop and people to get tested). If you cannot reliably find such changes from the data, then the policies have failed by their own logic. Comparisons are irrelevant at that point because they weren't justified that way.
The author states repeatedly that 'media' is trying to control 'us', but not what this media has to gain by mask wearing.
The more likely goal is to continue spending money (or eyeball time / clicks ) on media.
Yes, for profit media screams stupid headlines... For profit. business insider' as important media? Really?
There is no reason to reasonably and rationally discuss an issue raised by an article which takes this position... And does not discuss timing of vaccines, Delta variant, population skew, or the goal of preventing hospital overload.
I love the graph where the author says 'sure, maybe fewer people died, but...' . Classic.
The more likely goal is to continue spending money (or eyeball time / clicks ) on media.
Yes, for profit media screams stupid headlines... For profit. business insider' as important media? Really?
There is no reason to reasonably and rationally discuss an issue raised by an article which takes this position... And does not discuss timing of vaccines, Delta variant, population skew, or the goal of preventing hospital overload.
I love the graph where the author says 'sure, maybe fewer people died, but...' . Classic.