> Case fatality vs infection fatality rate Okay. So by case fatality rate, Sweden does look a lot worse than Norway. Your argument is that a high CFR implies a

> Case fatality vs infection fatality rate Okay. So by case fatality rate, Sweden does look a lot worse than Norway. Your argument is that a high CFR implies a lot more dead than would have otherwise been, because it strains the health system. From a quick look at the news, it seems that they were afraid of an overload of the medical system in Stockholm 1 week ago, but it had been okay so far; not sure how it played out. Couldn't a high CFR also just imply they triage their testing more because they have more sick people to test? > Everyone is dead on the long run, when and how are the only things that vary and, generally speaking, sooner is less desirable. Fair enough but that's moving the goal post. The claim as stated is "Sweden has significantly higher death rates", not "people are dying significantly sooner in Sweden". To this point, though, I'll say that if there's a Deus ex machina that cures people next month, Sweden will have clearly lost out by letting people die sooner.