Sweden avoiding lockdown

Perhaps you're only seeing what you want to see or you don't filter out the click bait reporting in media in general. When you look at numbers they are reporting back then. The median age, the low % in ICU its hard to spin that up into hysteria that you seem to find everywhere.

I'm not saying that as a personal criticism on you. But too many people don't distinguish tabloid style reporting from actual facts that are in the media.

People consume too much media without critical analysis of it.

It should be very easy to find these media articles which that we were all equally vulnerable post march 2020 then... so where are they?

And also, the specific section in the SAGE notes which advocates this as a strategy.

This is not what you were asked for.

You were asked to back up your specific claim about "equally vulnerable". You referenced SAGE. I'm asking for the reference where they promote the concept of people being equally vulnerable. Saying that people need to be made more aware of the threat they face is not the same thing as advocating they are all equally vulnerable.

You said it was widespread in the media. You have failed to substantiate this claim with actual articles, which should be trivial if it was as widespread as you allege. Instead of providing such articles you drop in lines like "just look for yourself", which is rather hollow given posters have cited mainstream news articles which contradict your "take".

Obesity, (and all the illnesses it causes) were the highest risk factors for severe Covid disease

Overweight people have a choice, and it wasn't up to those who actually looked after themselves (physically and dietary), to also look after them.

Saying someone is at risk is not the same as saying we are all at equal risk.

You were asked to back up your specific claim about "equally vulnerable". You've been unable to do so multiple times despite your claims it was so widespread.

If you want to go down this rabbit hole any further you are on your own, it's increasingly tenuous and irrelevent to the current topic.

You don't need to go anywhere else. Its there (indeed its everywhere) in back and black and white.

Remember that the graph is cumulative. It means that at the end of the period when most of the deaths occurred, Sweden had only slightly higher excess deaths than Ireland at 4.8% compared to 4.5% for Ireland. About 7% higher than Ireland but lower when the age profile is taken into account.

I understand the premise, though I think its not that useful as the approach and the virus changed over time. So it really only the early part of the pandemic thats useful to discuss. By extending the timeline its flattening the differences. When its the differences that are interesting.

If your chart was to reflect the premise its should divert at the start and align over time. But it doesn't. Its a mirror and I already explained why I think thats not logical.

Taking the age profile into account, is meaningless unless you explain how you calculated that. But that leads to a another question, why compare two countries with widely different age profiles when you could compare two similar age profiles. That leads to another questions when the virus is very age specific, and you've picked two widely different age profiles, they shouldn't mirror at all. Even cultural difference in people activities should make the charts different.

So its very hard to comment on your chart when how it generated is not explained. We have a conclusion, but nothing to explain how you got there.

Someone said the same pattern by clockwork. How can two entirely different countries have the same pattern by clockwork. Somethings not right, or you've not explained some McDonalds secret sauce used to create it.

I'm not saying its wrong, seems wrong to me. But perhaps if it was explained better I would "get" it.

Which is why I said apples and oranges. Compared to Sweden`s neighbours with the same or very similar percentages of those aged 65 or over Sweden`s excess deaths greatly exceed all of them.

For someone who accused another poster yesterday of being patronising you have certainly mastered that art in your reply.

I know and have studied social philosophy and have read widely around the subject and could redirect you to other concepts of democracy but that would not be a relevant answer ...as yours is not except to try to elevate your post to impress ...I am not impressed . 🙄

By all means use any education you might have to improve your own discourse , but to tell somebody to watch or read something that is entirely surplus to requirements and is fir many outside their experience , just to show off a little bit of knowledge ( sic) is pedantic, boastful and just creates an impression that you are full of...sxxx ( or flannel as I said before).

I could direct you to read the epidemiology of cases admitted to ICU in Sweden over Covid ,and scholarly medical articles to explain the rationale behind those decisions all of which I might consider relevant to the discussion but I would think most here would find beyond their layman's comprehension and boring in the extreme.

As I find your post ...

This has been explained many times to you and others who seek to use it as a stick to beat people with.

Would you similarly blame cancer sufferers for their illness and those with arthritis or autoimmune disorders on immunosupressant therapy for their low immunity leading to as much vulnerability as obesity ?

There are so many unwell people for which obesity is a side effect, and not the primary cause . And those whose daily struggles are against much more than a simple choice of whether they should add a bit more protein to their smoothy or what time they will go to the gym !

Rock on with the Ross O'Carroll Kelly narrative , Fintan ...it is so you 👏

I'm not sure that's a valid conclusion. If you are trying to prove the efficacy of restrictions and so forth, then you really want to compare, say, Sweden with a high-restrictions country (as Ireland was) rather than other countries that employed comparatively low levels of restrictions. Obviously if there's a different age profile then this needs to be taken into account but even if we do not do this, we find Sweden only marginally worse than Ireland in terms of excess deaths over the period.

This should not be the case. Ireland should have much lower excess deaths due to a) the high level of restrictions throughout and b) its younger age profile.

Why? If you are trying to prove the efficacy of restrictions you would look at restrictions, full stop. Why do you have to limit to high restrictions country or to only Ireland v Sweden??? You state it but don't justify it.

And the question on this thread is whether the Swedish approach or a restrictions based approach adopted to varying degrees by other countries is the correct approach.

There are more factors in play that the criteria you have listed, such as the intrinsic factors in the Scandinavian societies versus a country such as Ireland which has an open border with another high population jurisdiction which had lower restrictions.

So, any assessment of Sweden which does not consider its peers and nearest neighbours is incomplete if not a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation.

The countries which, if you were starting from first principles, you would first compare Sweden with.

And we find that, compared to its neighbouring countries, more restrictions lead to less excess deaths amongst neighbouring countries.

I think its called Data Distortion.