Meanwhile, in Sweden...

Liamo

Active member
They're looking at the wrong data, basically.
How is it "the wrong data"? The current 7-day rolling average of death rate per capita is admittedly just one piece of data - but I would say an important one. Whether it's the most important piece of data is open for discussion but as far as I can tell it is a relevant measure to allow you to judge the current state of affairs in a country, in relation to the impact the virus is having.
 
Every other country hit their peak cases and started coming down off that peak reasonably quickly. Sweden hit their peak and are staying there.
They seem happy enough to just let the number of cases carry on, and if people die along the way then hard luck, they’re mostly old and in poor health anyway.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Lol looks at the comments in that tweet mate.. your posting nonsense
I made no comment myself, I just posted some reports I thought were worthy of inclusion on this interesting thread. It’s important to see how the worlds control group compares don’t you think?
 

Alvez_48

Active member
I made no comment myself, I just posted some reports I thought were worthy of inclusion on this interesting thread. It’s important to see how the worlds control group compares don’t you think?
Sure why not... Ironically I'd argue due to lack of compliance and terrible government messaging / enforcement we've really been on the Swedish route for 60% of the time anyway... Without being able to do fun stuff like go to the barbers.
 

Alvez_48

Active member
How is it "the wrong data"? The current 7-day rolling average of death rate per capita is admittedly just one piece of data - but I would say an important one. Whether it's the most important piece of data is open for discussion but as far as I can tell it is a relevant measure to allow you to judge the current state of affairs in a country, in relation to the impact the virus is having.
But then it's the only piece of data that shows something negative about the Swedish despite being deep into the tail of the Pandemic.. which was already going back down at the time of publication.
See that's the problem isn't it, selective criticism and use of statistics to obfuscate the truth.
Doom mongers like yourself then latch onto it post it like it's gospel.
 

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
How is it "the wrong data"? The current 7-day rolling average of death rate per capita is admittedly just one piece of data - but I would say an important one. Whether it's the most important piece of data is open for discussion but as far as I can tell it is a relevant measure to allow you to judge the current state of affairs in a country, in relation to the impact the virus is having.
Because they are looking at the rolling average of cases on the day that they are reported, not when they happen. A lot of those deaths they've counted were from earlier. Much earlier. And, as I said, the mortality data they collect is different from Italy and Spain. Sweden can be criticised, and rightly has been, for failing to protect the elderly ... but they sure as hell haven't done the worst with this crisis.

And yes, they have suffered economically, as have most countries, despite keeping the country a little more open. Swedes have done as they were asked and, by and large, observed travel restrictions and social distancing. What they haven't done is forced everyone to stay in their homes for 6 to 8 weeks.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
On the economic front, didn’t the analysis of the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic in America show that the places that locked down more severely and for longer actually recovered quicker and better economically?
 

Alvez_48

Active member
On the economic front, didn’t the analysis of the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic in America show that the places that locked down more severely and for longer actually recovered quicker and better economically?
Lol it's not like the flu... Unless it suits my agenda to compare it to the flu.

Remind me if I'm wrong, I can't seem to remember but did anything happen between say 1918 and 1945?
Is it in any way relevant to the globalised world that we are now subject to.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Lol it's not like the flu... Unless it suits my agenda to compare it to the flu.

Remind me if I'm wrong, I can't seem to remember but did anything happen between say 1918 and 1945?
Is it in any way relevant to the globalised world that we are now subject to.
My agenda?? What is my agenda?

As for your question about whether anything happened between 1918 and 1945, what are you getting at?
 

Alvez_48

Active member
My agenda?? What is my agenda?

As for your question about whether anything happened between 1918 and 1945, what are you getting at?
Your agenda implies don't worry about the economic impact of lockdown those who lockdown hard 102 years ago had better economic performance than those who didn't.

Not only is the claim spurious and completely irrelevant there were also slightly different things going on, thus my tongue in cheeky response.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Is it irrelevant?

I appreciate the world is very different now, but I’m not clear that makes it less relevant or more relevant.

Not only that, but my understanding is that the main reasons for such large numbers of dead in 1918 were bad decisions. In the U.K., as in France and Germany, it was the denial of the extent of the epidemic for propaganda purposes so the enemy weren’t aware that their opponents were weakened. This prevented the implementation of good widespread life saving strategies.

I can see parallels in that at least.

As you are rejecting the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic as irrelevant, can you point to a more recent example which shows different data in terms of more favourable outcomes both economically and public health where the disease was allowed to run its course rather than lockdown measures?
 

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
There is so much wrong with that tweet, and the linked article, that I've already pointed out. The article is very lazily put together, the author not even understanding what the timing of that 7.5% result meant, or its implications (in short that at least 150,000 Stockholmers had been infected by the end of March/beginning of April). With a rapidly spreading virus, how many more do you think would have been infected now?
 

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
Yep. I'm sure it does, because they have very low levels of acquired immunity. The summer will be interesting as lots of Norwegians have their summer houses in Sweden, where things are considerably cheaper. Visiting the summer house will be a hard habit to break .... and it will have economic consequences for Sweden for sure. On a side not, I just hope I can get to mine :)
 

Liamo

Active member
Lol it's not like the flu... Unless it suits my agenda to compare it to the flu.
lt's not comparing the diseases to each other, it's comparing the economic effects of having a more severe lockdown as opposed to having a less severe lockdown - but I think you probably knew that.
 
Top