Sweden avoiding lockdown

TonyMaloney

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not the case at the moment however where they are showing a slight increase in daily deaths averaged over 7 days.

There's no point doing a 7 day average on sweden's deaths. The deaths are accurate but incomplete.

TonyMaloney

cnocbui wrote: »

Deaths are declining week on week.

No they're not, they're rising again

is_that_so

Seems Sweden have been hit by the vaccine supply issues as well. Projected dates likely to be missed.

Sweden's vaccine coordinator has said repeated delays of Covid-19 vaccine deliveries meant Sweden would not be able to meet the target of having all adults vaccinated by 30 June.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0328/1206617-coronavirus-global/

Bit cynical

TonyMaloney wrote: »

No they're not, they're rising again

I would expect them to rise somewhat over the next few weeks but not to the extent critics are suggesting.

cnocbui

TonyMaloney wrote: »

No they're not, they're rising again

How so?

"I don't understand the difference between a graph that shows 'deaths by date death occurred' vs a graph that shows 'deaths by date the death was reported', and even after it's been explained to me many times that Sweden in particular has a lag in death reporting, I still show an inability to learn this basic concept."

You have a remarkable consistency if nothing else cnocbui, kudos on that. Stay true to yourself!

We're pretty 'good' at death reporting.

According to your logic, deaths were radically dropping in Ireland in mid-January



However, with two weeks of further reporting...



And with another two months of further reporting...

TonyMaloney

cnocbui wrote: »

How so?

Because cases and hospitalisations are rising again.

We won't know how many have died in Sweden for a few weeks because of how they report deaths.
What you're looking at there is incomplete.

cnocbui

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Because cases and hospitalisations are rising again.

We won't know how many have died in Sweden for a few weeks because of how they report deaths.
What you're looking at there is incomplete.

What you have assserted as fact, is an unknown, and is something you made up to fit your bias. What I stated is based on that chart, with data that actually exists, and is therefore factual.

TonyMaloney

cnocbui wrote: »

What you have assserted as fact, is an unknown, and is something you made up to fit your bias. What I stated is based on that chart, with data that actually exists, and is therefore factual.

It's entirely factual, it's just incomplete.

It's been a year. If you still can't wrap your ahead around the difference between how Sweden and every other country reports deaths, then you have no business expecting people to listen to your opinions.

Seriously, take the time to understand it. You're not helping your cause with this ignorance. I'm sure many people from your side of the argument would privately agree that the argument would be better served if you learned the basics.

If you've any questions I'm happy to help you catch up

Wolf359f

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Because cases and hospitalisations are rising again.

We won't know how many have died in Sweden for a few weeks because of how they report deaths.
What you're looking at there is incomplete.

You're wasting your time. You can go back on this thread through previous waves and see people saying the same, cases are rising but deaths are falling.
March 27, 1 death reported on that date. Come back in 2 weeks and see if there's only 1 death assigned to that date. Just overlay historic deaths per day with ICU admissions and you can see how things are trending (ICU in lighter green, deaths in darker green) I cannot see how it wont keep following the trend.

Wolf359f

Bit cynical wrote: »

There's been a rise in cases over the last few weeks however this rise has been fairly gradual, nothing like what we are seeing in some other countries. This rise has been feeding through to deaths and we are beginning to see a slight rise there too.

Four factors prevent the sort of Armageddon critics are predicting however. 1. The rise in cases has been gradual and not dramatic. 2. Sweden have been good at preventing deaths from cases: the same number of cases in Sweden does not later translate into the numbers of deaths we would expect in other countries. 3. Onset of spring and summer means fewer deaths from cases. 4. The beginning of vaccinations (though still at the early stages) of elderly and vulnerable will mitigate against deaths.

These four mitigating factors mean that Sweden probably won't be instituting the sort of lockdown measures we are seeing in Ireland.

On your points:
1) Definitely gradual, nothing like our massive spike we had.
2) It depends on what other countries you're comparing to. Good testing reduces the CFR
3) It may be to late to rely on summer, let alone spring to prevent deaths. If your're thinking that far ahead it's too late.
4) It may be early on the vaccine front, but it should definitely have an impact. There should be a high proportion of the most vulnerable protected. We suffered the wave just as we started vaccinations, Sweden have about 2 months of people being vaccinated, it should definitely help.
5) I will add, as much as people complain about Sweden not locking down, the public over there have been giving a lot more trust and responsibility to do the right thing and they do it. They reduce contacts, social distance etc... We need to be forced to do what Sweden's people are asked to do. I know it's not that simple, but I'd say they are more willing to follow guidelines more so than in Ireland (that could be down to constant lockdowns here and we run a muck when we're unlocked etc...)

I've just looked through the last 14 days of posts and I can't see anyone predicting an Armageddon. What am I missing?

I mean, it would hardly be the first time you've 'spoken for the opposition' without anyone seemingly having made the predictions or arguments that you're merrily tearing down - which is more than a bit disingenuous, no?

Bit cynical

Wolf359f wrote: »

On your points:
1) Definitely gradual, nothing like our massive spike we had.
2) It depends on what other countries you're comparing to. Good testing reduces the CFR
3) It may be to late to rely on summer, let alone spring to prevent deaths. If your're thinking that far ahead it's too late.
4) It may be early on the vaccine front, but it should definitely have an impact. There should be a high proportion of the most vulnerable protected. We suffered the wave just as we started vaccinations, Sweden have about 2 months of people being vaccinated, it should definitely help.
5) I will add, as much as people complain about Sweden not locking down, the public over there have been giving a lot more trust and responsibility to do the right thing and they do it. They reduce contacts, social distance etc... We need to be forced to do what Sweden's people are asked to do. I know it's not that simple, but I'd say they are more willing to follow guidelines more so than in Ireland (that could be down to constant lockdowns here and we run a muck when we're unlocked etc...)

Here's a graph of cases (solid) overlaid with deaths (dotted line). What we see is that cases are not translating into later deaths in the same way as they were during the Christmas period. There's a much greater lag than would be expected and I suspect we won't see anything like the Christmas rise. This I would attribute to the longer days, people getting out more. Later there will be the early effects of vaccinations and more warmer weather.

The Christmas rise in deaths though greater than what is happening now turned out to be a lot less than critics were expecting with sadly greater numbers proportionately dying in other parts of Europe over the same period.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

I've just looked through the last 14 days of posts and I can't see anyone predicting an Armageddon. What am I missing?

I mean, it would hardly be the first time you've 'spoken for the opposition' without anyone seemingly having made the predictions or arguments that you're merrily tearing down - which is more than a bit disingenuous, no?

It might be a bit of an exaggeration of their position and based more on a couple of posters over the last year predicting future catastrophe that never fully materialises. For example before Christmas the rise in cases was predicted to result in a rise in deaths which it did but the rise in Sweden was much less than Europe generally and, in fact, it was during this time that Sweden ended up in the lower half of the EU for deaths per million.

Again with the current rise in cases, it looks like we're going to see an even lower corresponding rise in deaths.

cnocbui

But these people just have to invent some numbers they claim will be forthcoming, and which will make that dotted line climb to whatever nonsensical heights they want.

See - your stupid graph gets TRUMPed by real made up stuff. You're a looser, to quote a renowned genius and former president.

Wolf359f

Bit cynical wrote: »

Here's a graph of cases (solid) overlaid with deaths (dotted line). What we see is that cases are not translating into later deaths in the same way as they were during the Christmas period. There's a much greater lag than would be expected and I suspect we won't see anything like the Christmas rise. This I would attribute to the longer days, people getting out more. Later there will be the early effects of vaccinations and more warmer weather.

The Christmas rise in deaths though greater than what is happening now turned out to be a lot less than critics were expecting with sadly greater numbers proportionately dying in other parts of Europe over the same period.

I'd be interested to see that chart from a historic perspective. Has the dashed death line changed over time? As in, was it always heading downwards?
But on the chart, Feb 1st, is that a 7 day rolling average of deaths of 0.8 deaths per 100k? Population of Sweden is 10.1mil, so that's 88 deaths as a 7 day rolling average on Feb 1st? Because it should be 53.

Bit cynical

Wolf359f wrote: »

I'd be interested to see that chart from a historic perspective. Has the dashed death line changed over time? As in, was it always heading downwards?
But on the chart, Feb 1st, is that a 7 day rolling average of deaths of 0.8 deaths per 100k? Population of Sweden is 10.1mil, so that's 88 deaths as a 7 day rolling average on Feb 1st? Because it should be 53.

I posted a graph of deaths a few weeks ago (see below). 1st Feb on the graph above is the same as on the graph below at a bit over 0.8 per 100k.

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid people hoping for an Irish-style lockdown in Sweden are going to be disappointed. Currently their daily fatalities are about half those of Ireland and falling at a faster rate the past few weeks according to this logarithmic chart.

Wolf359f

Bit cynical wrote: »

I posted a graph of deaths a few weeks ago (see below). 1st Feb on the graph above is the same as on the graph below at a bit over 0.8 per 100k.

But why is it inaccurate? 0.8 deaths per 100k is about 88 deaths per day on average over 7 days, but Sweden reported 53 deaths per day on average that week. Why the discrepancy?

charlie14

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Why dont you tell us or are you too lazy to google it yourself?

I know exactly what Sweden`s new cases and ICU numbers are, as I am sure adamaltmejd.se also did when they compiled that chart on predicted deaths posted by Tony Maloney.
You on the other hand strangely appear to believe predictions should be based on past deaths alone, and new confirmed cases and ICU numbers have no relevance.

Bit cynical

Wolf359f wrote: »

But why is it inaccurate? 0.8 deaths per 100k is about 88 deaths per day on average over 7 days, but Sweden reported 53 deaths per day on average that week. Why the discrepancy?

Can you tell me where you are getting the 53 from?

Wolf359f

Bit cynical wrote: »

Can you tell me where you are getting the 53 from?

From worldometers, which ties in with the Swedish Dashboard:
Feb 1: 45
Jan 31: 39
Jan 30: 57
Jan 29: 58
Jan 28: 56
Jan 27: 54
Jan 26: 66
Total: 375
Average per day 53.
Population: 10.1mil
Which is 0.52 deaths per 100k, not 0.8

Bit cynical

Wolf359f wrote: »

From worldometers, which ties in with the Swedish Dashboard:
Feb 1: 45
Jan 31: 39
Jan 30: 57
Jan 29: 58
Jan 28: 56
Jan 27: 54
Jan 26: 66
Total: 375
Average per day 53.
Population: 10.1mil
Which is 0.52 deaths per 100k, not 0.8

Thank you. Worldometers is wrong in this case or at least inconsistent. They are basing their numbers on date of death rather than date of report of death and are therefore inconstent with how they display other countries.

Wolf359f

Bit cynical wrote: »

Thank you. Worldometers is wrong in this case or at least inconsistent. They are basing their numbers on date of death rather than date of report of death and are therefore inconstant with how they display other countries.

It's the same data here: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

Worldometer's are just using the official Swedish source for deaths. Whats Johns Hopkins using?

Bit cynical

Wolf359f wrote: »

It's the same data here: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

Worldometer's are just using the official Swedish source for deaths. Whats Johns Hopkins using?

John Hopkin's cites the same Public Health Agency of Sweden as their source.

https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19

However they are processing the data differently based on date of report of death rather than date of death. This makes them more consistent with how other countries are reporting deaths.

Bit cynical

Article about Worldometer


Quote:

Max Roser, a researcher at Oxford University and founder of Our World In Data, told New Scientist that Worldometer regularly “wastes so much of my and my team’s time.”

“We get messages of people asking why do we not show this or that – ‘Worldometer has the data’,” he said. “Too often when you look into it, they provide no source or it is wrong.”

That unreliability, and Worldometer’s anonymous team of analysts with little to no accountability, led to even Wikipedia’s editors refusal to permit the use of Worldometer as a reliable source on coronavirus-related pages.

So should you trust Worldometer’s figures? If you’re a government official, academic or other high-ranking expert working to further understand the coronavirus outbreak, probably not.

[...]

But a major flaw in Worldometer’s reporting of the figures was its failure to note the difference in forms of reporting processes between countries, meaning death counts were displayed with equal weight, even if they excluded care home deaths or other crucial information.

Comparisons between different countries were therefore flawed, and the Government quickly changed their source for figures to John Hopkins University (JHU).

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “Both Worldometer and John Hopkins provided comprehensive and well respected data. As the situation developed, we transferred from Worldometer to John Hopkins as John Hopkins relies more on official sources.”

Wolf359f

Bit cynical wrote: »

Article about Worldometer


Quote:

Max Roser, a researcher at Oxford University and founder of Our World In Data, told New Scientist that Worldometer regularly “wastes so much of my and my team’s time.”

“We get messages of people asking why do we not show this or that – ‘Worldometer has the data’,” he said. “Too often when you look into it, they provide no source or it is wrong.”

That unreliability, and Worldometer’s anonymous team of analysts with little to no accountability, led to even Wikipedia’s editors refusal to permit the use of Worldometer as a reliable source on coronavirus-related pages.

So should you trust Worldometer’s figures? If you’re a government official, academic or other high-ranking expert working to further understand the coronavirus outbreak, probably not.

[...]

But a major flaw in Worldometer’s reporting of the figures was its failure to note the difference in forms of reporting processes between countries, meaning death counts were displayed with equal weight, even if they excluded care home deaths or other crucial information.

Comparisons between different countries were therefore flawed, and the Government quickly changed their source for figures to John Hopkins University (JHU).

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “Both Worldometer and John Hopkins provided comprehensive and well respected data. As the situation developed, we transferred from Worldometer to John Hopkins as John Hopkins relies more on official sources.”

Doesn't worldometer use the actual data from the official Swedish source?
Wouldn't that provide a more accurate picture?
I can't even find the data on johns Hopkins. Have you a link to the page you got that chart from?

Bit cynical

Wolf359f wrote: »

Doesn't worldometer use the actual data from the official Swedish source?
Wouldn't that provide a more accurate picture?

They both get data from the same official source however Worldometer's interpretation of the data is not consistent with how they present data for other countries and therefore should not be used in comparisons. It is not that Worldometer is inaccurate in this instance but rather that date used in their data for Sweden is not the same as that used for other countries. Date of death is not the same as date of report of death.

I can't even find the data on johns Hopkins. Have you a link to the page you got that chart from?

The link is actually at the bottom of the chart.

https://91-divoc.com/

mcsean2163

Interesting write up:

http://davidwinch.website/sweden-at-zero/

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

Deaths are declining week on week.

Deleted User wrote: »

"I don't understand the difference between a graph that shows 'deaths by date death occurred' vs a graph that shows 'deaths by date the death was reported', and even after it's been explained to me many times that Sweden in particular has a lag in death reporting, I still show an inability to learn this basic concept."

You have a remarkable consistency if nothing else cnocbui, kudos on that. Stay true to yourself!

We're pretty 'good' at death reporting.

According to your logic, deaths were radically dropping in Ireland in mid-January


However, with two weeks of further reporting...


And with another two months of further reporting...

According to my logic, the data is still causing you to faceplant as it just doesn't want to cooperate.



Oh dear, looks like that 'but the delayed data wil soon catch up and rescue me' ship has well and truly sailed.

TonyMaloney wrote: »

No they're not, they're rising again

Still not.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Interesting write up:

http://davidwinch.website/sweden-at-zero/

Wolf359f

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Interesting write up:

http://davidwinch.website/sweden-at-zero/

Interesting he can write it up on 10th March with screengrabs from 16th March.
Anyway, he highlighted 16th March having 1 death, now weeks later we can see there's 15 deaths on that day. It's bad enough with the lag between deaths and cases, but in Sweden, due to how they report, it always seems like an ever longer lag.