4 ms·

But that isn't the case at all - Sweden is under-reporting the number of Covid-19 deaths by a significant amount, where the excess deaths minus the reported cov

But that isn't the case at all - Sweden is under-reporting the number of Covid-19 deaths by a significant amount, where the excess deaths minus the reported covid-19 deaths show a large deviation. Here's an article (in Swedish) about the statistical anomaly: https://www.dn.se/nyheter/kraftigt-okat-antal-avlidna-i-pandemins-spar/ https://www.dn.se/nyheter/kraftigt-okat-antal-avlidna-i-pand... There's strong pressure within Sweden to present the herd-immunity strategy as successful, especially considering the huge difference in deaths-per-million compared to our neighboring Nordic countries. There's always existed a very strong competitive streak in Sweden's relationship with its immediate neighbors, and the spotlight of international attention has escalated that - even at the cost of human lives.

ynfnehf 6y ago
I don't see anything in that article saying that there is a significant under-reporting (only that there is an above average number of deaths, which is expected). Since FoHM and SCB use the exact same register (where FoHM just filters out everyone not diagnosed), I find it difficult to believe that the discrepancy would be very large.
- null_object 6y ago
  You have to do your own math to compare the excess deaths for the period of week 13-15 (around a thousand extra deaths) and the reported covid-19 deaths (just over 500). It's difficult to find any article that I can cite for the disparity, as pretty much no-one wants to report it.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    According to https://covid19info.live/sweden/ https://covid19info.live/sweden/ Sweden had 877 covid-19 deaths week 13 to 15, and according to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ Sweden had 878 covid-19 deaths week 13 to 15. Where did you get your 500 number from?
    - null_object 6y ago
      I was working from the figures here: https://c19.se https://c19.se But I see that you stated in another post that Sweden's bars and restaurants are closed, so I don't think we're going to agree about statistics.
      - ynfnehf 6y ago
        I also tried checking the statistics, i.e. SCB deaths - FoHM deaths and found no big deviation from the 2015-2019 mean. Both data from the official excel sheets.
      - henrikschroder 6y ago
        c19.se reports 921 total deaths by April 12th, and 23 dead by March 22nd. That results in 898 dead for weeks 13 to 15. You said 500 deaths for that time period, but your own source says 898. Your numbers are wrong. > I don't think we're going to agree about statistics. 898 vs 500 is not a matter of opinion or agreeing.
        null_object 6y ago
        My numbers were for Stockholm - not the entire country. The deaths during that period for covid-19 were around 500 and the excess deaths around 900+
        henrikschroder 6y ago
        > My numbers were for Stockholm This is the first time in this entire comment chain that you mentioned that, just pointing that out. But yeah, you're right. 901 excess deaths for Stockholms län during those three weeks according to SCB, with 518 covid-19 deaths according to c19.se So Sweden is probably still underreporting. Expanding the area to the entire country makes the discrepancy smaller, but at the same time Stockholm has been hardest hit, so that's still consistent with underreporting. Interesting!
        6y ago
gpderetta 6y ago
It might be. I was taking the NYT numbers at face value. They might be wrong of course.

ynfnehf 6y ago

I don't see anything in that article saying that there is a significant under-reporting (only that there is an above average number of deaths, which is expected). Since FoHM and SCB use the exact same register (where FoHM just filters out everyone not diagnosed), I find it difficult to believe that the discrepancy would be very large.

null_object 6y ago
You have to do your own math to compare the excess deaths for the period of week 13-15 (around a thousand extra deaths) and the reported covid-19 deaths (just over 500). It's difficult to find any article that I can cite for the disparity, as pretty much no-one wants to report it.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  According to https://covid19info.live/sweden/ https://covid19info.live/sweden/ Sweden had 877 covid-19 deaths week 13 to 15, and according to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ Sweden had 878 covid-19 deaths week 13 to 15. Where did you get your 500 number from?
  - null_object 6y ago
    I was working from the figures here: https://c19.se https://c19.se But I see that you stated in another post that Sweden's bars and restaurants are closed, so I don't think we're going to agree about statistics.
    - ynfnehf 6y ago
      I also tried checking the statistics, i.e. SCB deaths - FoHM deaths and found no big deviation from the 2015-2019 mean. Both data from the official excel sheets.
    - henrikschroder 6y ago
      c19.se reports 921 total deaths by April 12th, and 23 dead by March 22nd. That results in 898 dead for weeks 13 to 15. You said 500 deaths for that time period, but your own source says 898. Your numbers are wrong. > I don't think we're going to agree about statistics. 898 vs 500 is not a matter of opinion or agreeing.
      - null_object 6y ago
        My numbers were for Stockholm - not the entire country. The deaths during that period for covid-19 were around 500 and the excess deaths around 900+
        henrikschroder 6y ago
        > My numbers were for Stockholm This is the first time in this entire comment chain that you mentioned that, just pointing that out. But yeah, you're right. 901 excess deaths for Stockholms län during those three weeks according to SCB, with 518 covid-19 deaths according to c19.se So Sweden is probably still underreporting. Expanding the area to the entire country makes the discrepancy smaller, but at the same time Stockholm has been hardest hit, so that's still consistent with underreporting. Interesting!
        6y ago

gpderetta 6y ago

It might be. I was taking the NYT numbers at face value. They might be wrong of course.