4 ms·

> According to this Statista data, they’re roughly in the middle for Western Europe I stopped right here. You linked data that shows them 5th of a list of 31 c

> According to this Statista data, they’re roughly in the middle for Western Europe I stopped right here. You linked data that shows them 5th of a list of 31 countries, with values that are 5x larger than 2/3 of the list. You linked that to argue they are "roughly in the middle". At that point facts don't matter and there's no point in having a discussion.

elcritch 6y ago
> I stopped right here. You linked data that shows them 5th of a list of 31 countries, with values that are 5x larger than 2/3 of the list. You linked that to argue they are "roughly in the middle". At that point facts don't matter and there's no point in having a discussion. The facts do matter, though your comment doesn't give my point fair consideration that I'd expect of a genuine discussion. I provided a link to raw data for all of Europe which requires a bit of interpretation since Statista doesn't have a convenient link for Western European. Croatia is not part of Western Europe by most metrics, so saying they're 5x smaller isn't a valid criticism. For sake of completeness, I took data from the first Statista link and a common list of Western European countries: Luxembourg, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Italy, UK, Spain, Belgium. These lists vary of course, and if you were critiquing my argument that would be the best point, and I would concede that. For those countries I took the Statista at the time of this post (plus extra data for Swizterland of 23.57). Using the Excel quartile on these countries the quartiles are: 1st: 4.95-14.51, 2nd: 14.51-36.03, 3rd: 36.03-57.85, 4th: 57.85-86.4. Sweden at 56.89 falls into the 3rd quartile, though just barely. When speaking, I consider 2nd and 3rd quartiles to be "middle of the pack" as a general statement (rather than the median or average). As in if one were talking of say, student grades, or variations in parts productions I'd give them a "B" and say they're middle of the pack. Almost in the "A" group, but not quite. You could say it's close enough that it doesn't matter, but by the numbers and using quartiles the math would put it there. Personally I'm happy my eye ball estimation as it'd getting very close to where I'd say Sweden is in the top of the pack. A valid criticism would be that Belgium appears to be an outlier and likely counts their numbers differently (w/o Belgium Sweden is pushed into the bottom of the 4th quartile)), but I have not method to control for that nor the time to do so unfortunately. To my overall point, despite being downvoted, I still consider Sweden's policy not a resulting in complete outlier to be a "win". It's close, but yes, that's my conclusion. If a vaccine had similar ratios of effectives vs no vaccine it'd likely not be considered an effective vaccine or deterrent. Unfortunately I've yet to see good thorough counter-arguments in this or in scientific arguments. Also, other arguments often don't consider what how policies in health care are or aren't generally considered effective.

elcritch 6y ago

> I stopped right here. You linked data that shows them 5th of a list of 31 countries, with values that are 5x larger than 2/3 of the list. You linked that to argue they are "roughly in the middle". At that point facts don't matter and there's no point in having a discussion. The facts do matter, though your comment doesn't give my point fair consideration that I'd expect of a genuine discussion. I provided a link to raw data for all of Europe which requires a bit of interpretation since Statista doesn't have a convenient link for Western European. Croatia is not part of Western Europe by most metrics, so saying they're 5x smaller isn't a valid criticism. For sake of completeness, I took data from the first Statista link and a common list of Western European countries: Luxembourg, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Italy, UK, Spain, Belgium. These lists vary of course, and if you were critiquing my argument that would be the best point, and I would concede that. For those countries I took the Statista at the time of this post (plus extra data for Swizterland of 23.57). Using the Excel quartile on these countries the quartiles are: 1st: 4.95-14.51, 2nd: 14.51-36.03, 3rd: 36.03-57.85, 4th: 57.85-86.4. Sweden at 56.89 falls into the 3rd quartile, though just barely. When speaking, I consider 2nd and 3rd quartiles to be "middle of the pack" as a general statement (rather than the median or average). As in if one were talking of say, student grades, or variations in parts productions I'd give them a "B" and say they're middle of the pack. Almost in the "A" group, but not quite. You could say it's close enough that it doesn't matter, but by the numbers and using quartiles the math would put it there. Personally I'm happy my eye ball estimation as it'd getting very close to where I'd say Sweden is in the top of the pack. A valid criticism would be that Belgium appears to be an outlier and likely counts their numbers differently (w/o Belgium Sweden is pushed into the bottom of the 4th quartile)), but I have not method to control for that nor the time to do so unfortunately. To my overall point, despite being downvoted, I still consider Sweden's policy not a resulting in complete outlier to be a "win". It's close, but yes, that's my conclusion. If a vaccine had similar ratios of effectives vs no vaccine it'd likely not be considered an effective vaccine or deterrent. Unfortunately I've yet to see good thorough counter-arguments in this or in scientific arguments. Also, other arguments often don't consider what how policies in health care are or aren't generally considered effective.