3 ms·
I didn't downvote, but I can see why. It seems like you didn't read the FT graph. It's showing the total death rates in a graph, and during initial spike in CO
by drivebycomment 6y ago
I didn't downvote, but I can see why.
It seems like you didn't read the FT graph. It's showing the total death rates in a graph, and during initial spike in COVID, Sweden showed 20% increase during the peak. By definition, there's no "skewing" possible, since it's all death - unless you're claiming hospitals are making up death.
If your main point is that reported death due to COVID might be inflated, sure, that's possible but that doesn't mean there's no increase due to COVID related death. If you want to point out the reported number due to COVID might be slightly higher than it really is, you should at least acknowledge that there is meaningful and substantial increase in death due to COVID as there absolutely is. By omitting that, your post can't be distinguished from someone posting with a conspiracy mindset and ignoring actual data on substantial increase in death.
- tcbawo 6y agoClearly, I must not have articulated myself well enough, since you took away the exact opposite of my point: I have heard the suggestion of inflated death numbers within the US in casual conversation multiple times and I frequently refer to this specific article as a counterargument. Fwiw - I have been a subscriber to the FT for ages and I've followed that chart (which is free to all) since the beginning.
- dboreham 6y agoThe inflated death numbers thing is Fox News disinformation.
- bnralt 6y agoI think you're post was pretty clear. "Some people argue that X, but the data doesn't support X." Sometimes there can be a tendency for people to skim posts and try to quickly box people into Team A or Team B. It's not unlikely that some people read your first sentence (or even the first half of your first sentence) and pegged you for having a particular position without paying attention to the whole thing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]