Sweden avoiding lockdown

You have been provided with the data. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

The only conclusions are that you are either totally incapable of doing even the most basic internet search, or that you are fully aware you are just posting gibberish. Either way you have long gone past the point of embarrassing yourself and looking foolish.

This reply to this tweet is more interesting , with statistics from reliable sources including John Hopkins on the the first 2 years.

"Apparently, this wasn’t the work of the statistics office, but a sole employee of SCB who was contacted by a Swedish newspaper to perform a very peculiar calculation on the raw data, averaging two years at the time. "

https://svd.se/sveriges-overdodlighet-tredje-lagst-i-norden…

What would be more interesting and honest to the discussion would be as per one of the replies suggests, to look at the fact that Sweden did come out average among EU countries and when reviewing their response along with others discuss what aspects could be adopted by other countries .

There is no doubt that we locked down too harshly in the second year when vaccinations were being rolled out .

But no way would adopting their first year strategy of no restrictions , in high density populations lead to anything other than absolute carnage for the older and more vulnerable generation in the presence of a novel virus with ni vaccines .

As witnessed in Italy .

The Nordic countries are of a lower density of population than most of the other countries in Europe, eg. only a third of Ireland , and similar social culture , so it is daft trying to compare them with other more populated countries with different ways of socialising and cultures .

A lot of anti lockdown restrictions posters keep pushing a narrative that others who have a different view are using the other Nordic countries to try to make Sweden's response look poorer . Not so . It just makes more sense to compare like with like , when there are so many confounders .

Thats how research is done , try to level the playing field as much as possible . Otherwise it is doubtful that results are applicable or even accurate .

Your link in the post above is very doubtful information , being disseminated by a publication that is not very highly respected tbh , and will not be given much credit , until proven otherwise by those who can be trusted not to use public health information for anything other than the public good .

The data wasn't adjusted for demographic changes and trends and still hasn't been.

There's also questions about whether all Swedish deaths are included, there could be thousands missing as Sweden allows deaths to be recorded without a date of death. This dataset was pulled together as a collection of weekly deaths in Sweden.

Just pulling one quote out of this to show you have no idea what you're talking about - "The Nordic countries are of a lower density of population than most of the other countries in Europe, eg. only a third of Ireland"

This shows you've just googled very basic statistics (ie "size of country vs population") with no real understanding. Sweden is a large country geographically, but its heavily urbanised with its population concentrated in cities. It has the 9th highest urban population ratio in the EU, significantly ahead of Ireland for example.

This is the actual measurement used for assessing population density when it comes to disease spread, because it doesn't matter how large your country is if its mostly empty countryside that nobody lives in.

If you're unaware of this very basic fact, that you based a lot of your post around, its a fairly safe assumption you're the one posting "very doubtful information".

And this is Sweden v Denmark, same data set.

See the spikes in 2020 that Sweden had but Denmark did not?

First post ..

I did mention population density in relation to other European countries . I was thinking of more highly populated countries than ours , but used the population density of Sweden vs Ireland as an example . Note the use of the abbreviation ..eg ..which means for example ?

Of course there are large highly populated areas in Sweden as well . Think that would be understood without having to state it , I would have thought .

If you choose to infer that data from John's Hopkins is ' doubtful ', that is to your bias .

There are many other differences in their population to other European countries that would make a difference in disease spread. As mentioned , society and culture being but two . Other differences which have been found to relate to disease spread more strongly than population density are household size which is common to all Nordic countries .

Over half Swedish adults live in single households and the rest of households are small with either couples living alone or with an average of 1.7 children . These factors have been found to be highly related to disease spread so it is perfectly correct to mention them . Education , socioeconomic class and immigration status also come into the equation , but less so than household size , age and health status .

With the small households, and exceptional health care and elder care system like their immediate neighbours they could have done so much better .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8239687/#!po=33.720

And for the second post ...

WHO data is fine thanks

. At least when they make adjustments, as they do , for both Germany and Sweden , they include it and explanations of why it may affect the outcomes, in 'supplementary information '.

They did make adjustments to the averages of those countries'excess mortality.

This is because Germany had a higher than usual excess mortality rate in 2019 , and Sweden had a lower than expected the same year , which when taken with results for years 2015 to 2019 skewed their overall averages.

And finally ..

The reason why excess death mortality in Sweden is thought to be lower in the last year is because of the effect of " mortality displacement " ,ie. an affect of decreased deaths in an elderly population due to increased deaths in the preceding year/s , as those who might have died in 2021 or 2022 died in 2020 as a result of Covid .

This explains the numbers , but does not justify the Swedish response especially when you look at how their closest neighbour dealt with the pandemic . This study directly compares the two responses and death rates ..

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8807990/

This would also be relevant re: spread of diseases, single person households v multi-generational.

Over half of Sweden's households made up of one person:

Agreed and it should be added that it’s peers who it is often compared to and are vying for top spot with also had very light lockdowns compared to the rest of Europe

It also did worse than some of its close neighbours such as Denmark and Norway who would be typical countries it would be compared to.

Sweden had a lot of inherent advantages going in - density factors wrt household size, ICU capacity and a population who made significant voluntary shifts in behaviour as noted on the thread. Factors other countries couldnt necessarily rely on.

It operated in an EU / region where other countries did impose restrictions and there was a huge drop in international travel.

So my main point is that Swedens approach doesnt scale and we shouldnt expect Swedish outcomes elsewhere as England found out.

I presume you are responding to my post although you only partially quote it and not refer that it is me you are replying to ??

Yes population density was mentioned with our numbers as an example.

Yes society and culture also mentioned along with household sizes, in the next post .

These factors are most similar to other Nordic countries and not the rest of Europe , so this is why they are compared as in the piece of research I posted which clearly outlines the differences in response and their results between Sweden and Norway .

Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the Covid 19 Pandemic https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8807990/#

It just makes sense to compare them unless one is trying to fudge the issue to make it look like they did better than they did .

They of course did better than Spain Italy and UK and a lot of other countries . But they also did worse than many ther countries too , ourselves included . With the confounding factors as mentioned above , one with lockdown and one without , a straight comparison with their nearest neighbour is the most accurate .

Ireland's lockdowns were also more harmful to less well off groups, you'll find that in every single country regardless of policy. The pandemic was more harmful to people who couldn't just WFH and faux outrage at anyone not doing so.

Never got that notification so only reading now.

I remember all of the above and my memory differs from yours. But I had asked you a question first, about Sweden...

My point that you ignored completely, was that Swedish version pf NPHET out right lied and held back information, but you don't find that a civil liberty issue??

@AdamD but the big difference in the people in Sweden and Ireland who couldn't work from home was that Ireland helped people financially with the PUP and other measures.

No picnic anywhere especially for essential workers who had no choice but to go out everyday to work all through it.

But many people in Sweden became infected gping out to work with no other recourse.

They were predominantly in less affluent and minority groups, which has shone a light on how inequatable the Swedish response was.

Just whataboutery!

Address the fact that they compare so badly in that study with their nearest and most similar neighbour, Nordic or otherwise. You keep deflecting without dealing with it. Why?

Ireland had very high numbers of deaths over this winter from pneumonia and flu.

Not surprising considering a) the extremely high numbers in hospitals over this winter, and b) people suffering flu for the first time in a few years because masks and restrictions had all but wiped it out over the Covid years.

And c) what are those numbers based on ?

If based on the previous few years , deaths in Sweden would be happy to be lower and we would definitely be going up .

We will have to look at how those figures of % higher and lower were arrived at , before jumping to premature conclusions . !.

I notice no links in the previous posts ..here's an official answer

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-03-02/289/#pq-answers-289

Maybe read the qualification in the Eurostat report . It talks about how the data is gathered particularly in Ireland as opposed to other countries . And no, I asked a question , because unlike some here, I don't presume to know all the answers.

I will wait till the CSO report is out before I jump on board thanks.

And no , it's not my opinion . Its the CMO's as regards deaths etc over winter ..

Irish Examiner

https://www.irishexaminer.com › ari...

Pneumonia and flu contributed to excess deaths over Christmas period, says CMO's office

You just quoted part of report without the link.

What was in the rest of it ?

Or did that not count, in your opinion ?

I don't think anybody here needs to say that we are most of us posting from unconscious bias , and I am glad you recognize this . That is why I was reluctant to get too involved until more is available.

I posted the link to the CMO's opinion which is accurate and educated I think we can agree and is about the high deaths over winter.

The bit about the masks and restrictions effectively reducing flu and the resp viruses is true and factual . And backed up by evidence worldwide . Refer to epidemiological data in HSPC site .

The first link was about the oireachtais questions and answers from Stephen Donnelly in relation to the excess deaths recorded on Euro stat which is readily available .

Is this the one you can't access ? I will post it again. And the other just in case .

None of this is my opinion as all are backed up by data unlike your post which didn't provide link at all , only a partial quote from an article in the ST ..is it behind a paywall , because you will have to produce a full link now if you are berating me over mine and knew behind a paywall is not allowed afaik.

However if I choose to post my opinion I am entitled to do so without your permission...and I will.

But I take your point about fact and opinion.

Now is the bit where you say the Eurostat report

" (Which probably took 1000s of hours of highly qualified, peer reviewed research time by professional researchers in a respected research organisation)"

fact or opinion ?

Given the 'probably ' I would venture it is opinion.

They are highly respected. I agree .

However they qualify the report by saying it is incomplete and that different methods of collection by different countries may have an effect on results .

And that is why I said I would be happy to wait for the CSO report this month , before jumping on the bandwagon as regards Sweden vs Ireland . That is my opinion .

Links ..again .

Now can you post the complete link for your article?

This is because a proper, independent, investigative journalist does not exist in Ireland, and in many other countries too. All we saw throughout the pandemic was the media regurgitating what was handed to them by the ‘nudge unit’ of NPHET. They became a part of an apparatus with a task to ensure that people were sufficiently worried to accept only one narrative, comply with restrictions and take the jabs. Media was a part of propaganda.

As for the unexplained excess deaths, this topic does not suit the current narrative of ‘let’s forget this dark times and move on’, therefore it is largely ignored. While the perception of the ability to prevent covid deaths has been monetized and profited from to the extreme degree, the same may not be applicable to the unexplained excess deaths, and thus no interest in the underlying causes. There is no money there, only the inconvenient truth.

There is no NPHET, no ‘nudge unit’ and, as we know well at this point, no proper journalism any more. The excess deaths are inconvenient proof that the government policies for dealing with covid-19 will cause more deaths than the virus itself. Many of people here said this from the beginning that the cure was worse than the disease itself and argued that lockdowns were causing more harm than good long term. I have said many times that the government should have taken into account first as well as second and even third order outcomes of the policies they implemented. Instead they optimised their decisions for the first order outcomes only (i.e. deaths from covid-19 only). The unexplained excess deaths that many countries are experiencing right now are to do with those second and third level outcomes that stem from the decisions of their respective governments.  

Very true. It only makes rational sense if you are trying to eradicate the virus. I think there was an "eradicationalist" mentality in Ireland long after it was realized that the virus could not be eradicated. I do remember a lot of people thinking that if they locked down severely enough for a few weeks that some sort of long term damage would be inflicted on the virus. Consciously, when challenged, they might acknowledge that they were going to have to live with the virus, but I think unconsciously, they maintained the unexamined belief that the virus could be beaten.

Then of course you had the zero-covid campaigners who bizarrely were often senior medics. They would have had influence behind the scenes.

I don't think they ever opposed vaccines. Could I ask where you are getting your information from?

Also in terms of excess deaths, theirs is about the same as Norway's over the extended period (see chart above) and lower than Finland despite having fewer restrictions.