@kravietz @bhaugen
This is a classic case of selecting the numbers to confirm an existing conclusion ( #Sweden bad).
On the left, you are provided with the number of new #infections (if you believe in the accuracy of the test). However, these numbers are based on the total population (and on how many were tested, a number we are not provided with). Guess which country has the most people? Sweden 10.3 million, Denmark (next largest) 5.8 million.
On the right, the authors at least use numbers per million inhabitants. However, Sweden is compared to countries which have very low death rates (if you believe in every death caused by #COVID19 ). You could compare Sweden (358 deaths per million), also to countries with very restrictive lockdown measures, like France (410 dpm), Spain (587 dpm), or Belgium (784 dpm). Data from 16 May 2020, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
Beware, shiny graphs do not automatically equal truth!
> Sweden is compared to countries which have very low death rates
With this I disagree - COVID-19 epidemiology seems to be quite region-specific, possibly due to transport and cultural patterns. So the best way to compare specific policy decisions seems to be compare similar countries.
> Guess which country has the most people
Look at the graph. Does population of Denmark, Finland etc currently decline? It's not about the scale of the chart, it's about the trend.
@kravietz @bhaugen
Thanks for your reply!
> Sweden is compared to countries which have very low death rates
You may disagree with this, but it is a fact (from the graph you shared). What we should compare with what, is certainly worth a discussion. However, the authors compared also on the rationale, that Sweden has less strict measures enacted. Therefore it might also make sense to compare Sweden with countries, that have stricter measures, as I have done. Of course, this is only my rationale, which does not negate yours or that of the authors.
Regarding your second argument. Well, if you look at the graph, you see that the transmission (based on the tests made) in Sweden has flattened and I have not seen any horror news that the Swedish healthcare system has collapsed. Therefore, I cannot agree with the opinion of the authors.
Now, based on the above data can you honestly argue "yes, Sweden did a correct policy decision"?
I would say, if these 3000 extra deaths are socially acceptable in a high-income society like Sweden, then probably yes.
Otherwise it's the data that quite clearly demonstrates other Nordic countries were right and Sweden was wrong.
That's precisely why I wrote "if 3000 deaths is acceptable" 🤷 We're now moving here from a simple "more vs less deaths" comparison (which can be resolved based on facts) to a debate on managing risks, which cannot be resolved simply based on facts as it involves personal preferences and sentiments of large groups of people.
@kravietz @bhaugen
From the beginning, I were discussing whether the measures by the Swedish Government led to "massive amounts of suffering and death" and not if Sweden had more reported Covid-deaths than, lets say, Denmark.
I never questioned the numbers provided in the country comparison (although I am cautious about them). However, I question the comparison itself and what the numbers imply (as already explained).
You base your verdict about the Swedish measurements on 3000 Covid-related deaths. I already said, I respect that. Hope you can respect that I consider some more facts in my considerations. This has nothing to do with personal preferences and sentiments, it is just not as easy as to compare a few numbers.
I would love to revisit our discussion in a year or so and see what we both have learned in that time. For now, I think we can agree that we disagree :) Nonetheless, I really liked our conversation. All the best to you!
> You base your verdict about the Swedish measurements on 3000 Covid-related deaths
On 3000 *extra* deaths as compared to other countries - Sweden has 3500, the closest down (Denmark) has 500. If we compensate for population (2x) it's still 2500 vs 1000.
> Nonetheless, I really liked our conversation
Absolutely yes, same here! It's a really rare thing to discuss on this level on social media although Mastodon is much better in this aspect than the mainstream ones.
There's actually a lot of discussion I've seen especially in US media suggesting that herd immunity is the only way forward and we will eventually all need to do what Sweden did. This discussion certainly has to take place and this "massive amounts of death and suffering" doesn't help in keeping this discussion fact based.
@kravietz @bhaugen
Thanks for the additional data!
You are right, if I would only compare the Nordic countries with each other and base policy decisions only on the reported death cases, where COVID19 was tested positive (Sweden 358 dpm, Denmark around 95 dpm), than I could not agree, that Sweden made a correct policy decision.
However, I also take into consideration who died, meaning their age and prior health conditions. Please do not take me wrong. Every death is tragic and people should not die with 80 (average Corona-death age in Italy) or even earlier. However, for many old and sick people it is the annual flu that takes them away from us. It can be this corona-virus or any other of the respiratory viruses around. It seems legitimate to ask, is this virus season so much worse than all flu seasons before?
Furthermore, I consider the consequences of the shutdowns as well. Which health problems will the economic collapse bring?
I respect your conclusion, but I cannot agree.