Sweden avoiding lockdown

I'm just pointing out these black and white terms you are using are meaningless. Saying we had a strict lockdown when some people ignored it completely, and it wasn't enforced that strictly. That's the reality. Did it have an impact on the numbers. Sure. The data reflects that.

Perhaps more accurate to say herd immunity without (waiting for) a vaccine.

I'm just interested in stats and the analysis of them. Or in this case the fallacies of logic that can't possibly be true.

I do not know of anybody that believed lockdown would eradicate the virus. Lockdown was mainly to hopefully slow down the spread in the belief that science would come up with an answer, or the virus would mutate to a degree that would negate the need for lockdown. As it turns out to date both those believes have been correct. Sweden`s strategy was the opposite. It was anti science in chasing herd immunity, and the belief that once infected you would then become immune to any future variants was also wrong.

Weird. Because the lockdown wasn't constant for two years and definitely not for non-essential shops.

If you made the case that the trading period was too short to break even, then fair enough. Most people will be aware that things like insurance, commercial rates and rents, refused to drop there prices and forced people out of business. There's also an economy of scale, volume even for a small business.

But no you implied the lock down kept you closed for 2yrs. Which is disingenuous. But its your livelihood, its understandable. It highly emotive.

Were all the lockdown rules perfect no. They were sweeping generalisation to catch the lowest (stupidest) denominator.

For many people just having kids at home forced them out of work. Lots of indirect ways people were effected as well as the direct ones like losing their job or business.

A problem with a lot of discussion on this thread is that people are not using figures to justify their arguments or are basing them on outdated newspaper reports. If we look at the cumulative excess deaths during the period of the pandemic, we do indeed see that Sweden had a greater proportion of excess deaths in the early part of the pandemic. I did an analysis towards the end of the first year of the pandemic and found that the difference was fully accounted for by Sweden's older age profile. Since then, as the graph shows below, the gap has closed to the extent that, cumulatively, there is no significant difference. This means that, given Sweden's age profile, Sweden has done better than Ireland in terms of preserving lives during the pandemic when age is taken into consideration (as it should be).

I've no idea what that graph is. I would be expecting if your assertion was true your graph should have roughly the same percentages overall but at different times. Because the two countries didn't have the same timeline. That's not what your graph is showing. One is mirror of the other. Transposed to higher %. That would imply they had exactly the same waves of COVID exactly at the same time. That our health service manged it identically to Swedens health service. That they all had the same super spreader events at the same time.

Besides you don't need to create your own graphs lots of info on the web.

You can see all countries mapped below and even compare countries with similar age profiles.

As you would expect different countries exposed to COVID at different times and different death rates, have different profiles. None looks anything like yours.

You can also compare countries with similar age profiles directly.

I'm not the one inflating what the lockdown was or wasn't.

You realize can just look at the media at that time and see what was being reported.