Sweden avoiding lockdown

I think you can when the %'s are completely out of whack with your neighbours, remembering that the excess deaths are over and above deaths that would have expected to occur anyway.

But this has been the whole thread, mountains of data being ignored to support a wrong narrative.

Sweden did well post vaccination because the vaccinations worked.

They did not do well pre-vaccination because chasing herd immunity was a really bad idea for a mutable virus.

LOL.I`m not the poster jumping all around the world attempting to ignore the data that clearly shows that when compared on a like for like basis, even monthly, between neighbouring countries that share the same geographical are, have a shared history and the same percentage of their population in the highly vulnerable age group category, Sweden`s herd immunity strategy was a complete and utter failure.

Resorting to a strawman argument and semantic nonsense now.

If the lockdowns didn't prevent all excess deaths they were a failure!

Same kind of semantics as the vaccines arent effective cos they arent 100 percent effective.

Stop with the hysterical bullshit.

It's not semantics, it's basic science and population demographics.

Countries with higher numbers of foreign born residents were consequently going to have higher death rates.

After all, you have been whinging and wailing about excess deaths for 2 years, so I would have thought you would have some understanding of this now.

Yes. Based only on your own logic of course.

Apparently the Swedish policy was a failure because they had excess deaths , so naturally if there was also excess deaths in countries who implemented lockdowns, those lockdowns were a failure.

Oh look, as well as the strawman and semantic nonsense, now it's the goto word of your ilk 'hysteria'. It's not an argument, it's a slogan at this stage. Easier to shout it than to actually explain what was hysterical...

Sweden's policy was a failure not for the mere fact of having 1 excess death, but for having excess deaths noticeably higher (7.7%) by the end of 2020 than their peer countries \ nearest neighbours. And for lockdown \ restrictions to be effective, it is about a reduction in deaths and protection of health service.

Some people seem incapable of processing numbers between 0 and 100 and think anything in between is the same.

This is what you wrote: "any nation that used lockdowns wouldn't have had excess deaths."

It explains a lot of the nonsense we've seen about vaccines and now about lockdowns.

But of course at the end of the day, what's 7.7% more dead people against the whining, whinging and wailing of those put out by not being able to goto the pub.

According to the OECD Ireland & Norway has a higher % of foreign born than Sweden, 17% versus 14%. Ireland and Norway had lower excess deaths than Sweden. So even by your own criteria, your argument fails.

Your arguments are all over the shop and back to semantic weasel words.

Easy to shout that figures cited are out of date but yet fails to provide own figures...

There is no correlation here between % foreign born 2019 and covid excess deaths:

https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm

Sweden's health service didn't collapse because they stopped bringing people to hospital, and let them die, hence the excess deaths. They were also buttressed by their location, high starting ICU capacity, population density, high numbers of single households and actions of their neighbours. And the voluntary actions of their own citizens, something which cannot be predicted \ relied upon \ presumed to occur elsewhere.

The UK tried something like Sweden's strategy, and abandoned it in short order as the NHS was about to be overwhelmed.

And again "has any country who had a lockdown had a higher level of excess deaths to Sweden? Surely not, or it completely rubbishes your argument???"

Only if you're being deliberately stupid and engaging in weasel words or an alien who has just landed and thinks every country's circumstance is the same.

So your saying greater excess deaths was a result of a policy failure.

Thus, any country with excess deaths greater than Swedens can also be considered as having had a policy failure.

Would that not be considered a logical approach?

It would if you are talking about countries that neighbour each other, have more or less the same age profile for those most at risk, and where one had practically the complete opposite in policy to its neighbours. Otherwise it would be completely illogical.

Lets get real here Fintan, you were one of the posters that believed Sweden`s Covid deaths would be no higher than any of it`s neighbours. Even as late as Oct/Nov. 2020 your were supporting posts that Sweden was likely to have less deaths for 2020 than 2019 when the stats now clearly show they were 9,368 higher.

Demographics, density, single household populations \ multi-generational households and other more nebulous factors around cultural behaviour.

The angle your are promoting re: foreign born \ BAME. Well, there may be something in it (but I think more likely explained in that they are concentrated in poorer higher density households and more resistant to government advice), but I don't think it is necessary or sufficient to account for the majority of the difference we see between countries.

How does it explain the figures for Italy v France, for example.

If you think, all other things being equal, somewhere with a high population density mega city would have the same excess deaths as elsewhere shows you don't understand infectious diseases. Or are happy to be ignorant. Buy hey, why break a losing streak with your posts in demonstrating that.

So to argue that worse outcomes are only the result of that is without merit or foundation. It is the argument of the ignorant or the biased.

Your explanation of the differences in excess deaths, starting with Sweden's over its neighbours, is noticeable by its absence.

Interestingly Sweden has had less excess deaths on certain months than both Norway and Finland.

Those stats really prove that Sweden certainly was a safer place to be than many other EU countries

Edit: @charlie14 already posted above graph.

Even for you Fintan after all your incorrect predictions and misrepresenting attempts at data since, that is a piss poor effort.

From your figures.

Denmark had +1.27% excess deaths.

Finland had +2.85% excess deaths.

Norway had -0.18% excess deaths.

Sweden had +10.55% excess deaths.

Trust me here Fintan, small numbers good, big number bad when you are attempting to compare one strategy with another on excess deaths while Sweden were following their herd immunity strategy during 2020. 2021 they, like everywhere else, put their faith in vaccines .

Worth noting that when making comparisons on a like for like basis, Norway and Sweden were the one country until 1905.

How in the name of Jesus did you come up with these figures from the numbers I put up?

The credibility of your argument is diminished with the lack of understanding of the statistics.

Finland and Denrmark are at circa 7% increase comparing 2019 and 2021.

You should have paid attention until the end Fintan. My post states that from early 2021 Sweden started putting their faith in vaccines like everywhere else so when comparing the two different strategies you can only make comparisons for 2020 when Sweden`s faith was in achieving naturally acquired herd immunity and the other three were doing all the could to prevent their population from becoming infected.

You do realise don`t you Fintan that chasing herd immunity is based on as many becoming infected as quickly as possible to reach the estimated percentage level required ?