4 ms·

Shading excess deaths isn't weird, that's fine. However it's misleading because they don't compute the reverse integral. This article does: https://www.aier.or

Shading excess deaths isn't weird, that's fine. However it's misleading because they don't compute the reverse integral. This article does: https://www.aier.org/article/swedens-dry-tinder-accounts-for-many-covid-19-deaths/ https://www.aier.org/article/swedens-dry-tinder-accounts-for... If you take into account the amount by which Sweden's excess deaths were lower in the runup to COVID than expected, and in particular, lower than its neighbours, then Sweden starts to look more like its immediate bordering countries and in particular, 2020 looks like a normal year that simply caught up with an otherwise very non-deadly 2018-2019. The weird assumption they're making is that excess deaths == COVID deaths. It's stated half way down.

fullshark 6y ago
Yeah its true they only look above the curve, the excess deaths this year is probably closer to +15% based on that time series (eyeballing the first few months and being conservative). In any case this argument seems to be that because Sweden had a larger share of vulnerable population in the run up to the outbreak, you can't count those deaths as COVID deaths, which I don't agree with. It just means they had a more vulnerable population (dry tinder so to speak) and was possibly disproportionally impacted by COVID as a result. Obviously some % would have died even without COVID, possibly above the historical average but we have no way of knowing that and I've personally decided on excess deaths as the best though imperfect metric to measure COVID's impact. It is possible in 3 years we look back 4 years and find no excess deaths over that time period, which means basically COVID's major impact was shortening the lifespans of our oldest cohort of citizens, which is undeniably tragic but perhaps we acknowledge some things we did to stop that from happening were overkill. In any case the only reason I posted in the first place was OP had an intentionally misleading bar chart. Arguably +20% was also misleading (since it wasn't excess deaths in 2020, just excess deaths post outbreak) but you can look at the time series here (and posted above) and look for yourself. My personal belief is Sweden saw larger deaths than Denmark/Norway in part due to their COVID policies, but they did not experience the complete disaster many predicted in March. Whether the trade off was worth it will be debated by public policy experts for years, and ultimately no one will agree.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Nobody said you can't count those deaths as COVID deaths when they actually were, that's not the argument at all. The argument is that (a) not all excess deaths were caused by COVID, only some and (b) excess deaths are very low compared to the apocalypse that was promised, in fact Swedish excess deaths are totally normal and if the modellers had never showed up and told people the world was going to end unless we all lock down, nobody would have thought anything was happening in Sweden. There might have been a few press stories about an unusual form of pneumonia or a new coronavirus but it wouldn't have got more attention than the bad flu year of 2017 did in the USA. It is possible in 3 years we look back 4 years and find no excess deaths over that time period Right. The point I'm making is you don't have to wait 4 years. The data to make that call is already in: Swedish excess deaths for 2020 are on track to be normal. Very unlikely there'll be a sudden massive surge in the last month of 2020 given Sweden's near-zero COVID-linked death rate. Outside of the first wave excess death in 2020 has been lower than average for Sweden so it's already balanced out. My personal belief is Sweden saw larger deaths than Denmark/Norway in part due to their COVID policies, but they did not experience the complete disaster many predicted in March. Whether the trade off was worth it will be debated by public policy experts for years, and ultimately no one will agree. I feel the Danish economist's analysis is convincing w.r.t. "dry tinder". I fully agree with the last sentence though!

fullshark 6y ago

Yeah its true they only look above the curve, the excess deaths this year is probably closer to +15% based on that time series (eyeballing the first few months and being conservative). In any case this argument seems to be that because Sweden had a larger share of vulnerable population in the run up to the outbreak, you can't count those deaths as COVID deaths, which I don't agree with. It just means they had a more vulnerable population (dry tinder so to speak) and was possibly disproportionally impacted by COVID as a result. Obviously some % would have died even without COVID, possibly above the historical average but we have no way of knowing that and I've personally decided on excess deaths as the best though imperfect metric to measure COVID's impact. It is possible in 3 years we look back 4 years and find no excess deaths over that time period, which means basically COVID's major impact was shortening the lifespans of our oldest cohort of citizens, which is undeniably tragic but perhaps we acknowledge some things we did to stop that from happening were overkill. In any case the only reason I posted in the first place was OP had an intentionally misleading bar chart. Arguably +20% was also misleading (since it wasn't excess deaths in 2020, just excess deaths post outbreak) but you can look at the time series here (and posted above) and look for yourself. My personal belief is Sweden saw larger deaths than Denmark/Norway in part due to their COVID policies, but they did not experience the complete disaster many predicted in March. Whether the trade off was worth it will be debated by public policy experts for years, and ultimately no one will agree.

thu2111 6y ago
Nobody said you can't count those deaths as COVID deaths when they actually were, that's not the argument at all. The argument is that (a) not all excess deaths were caused by COVID, only some and (b) excess deaths are very low compared to the apocalypse that was promised, in fact Swedish excess deaths are totally normal and if the modellers had never showed up and told people the world was going to end unless we all lock down, nobody would have thought anything was happening in Sweden. There might have been a few press stories about an unusual form of pneumonia or a new coronavirus but it wouldn't have got more attention than the bad flu year of 2017 did in the USA. It is possible in 3 years we look back 4 years and find no excess deaths over that time period Right. The point I'm making is you don't have to wait 4 years. The data to make that call is already in: Swedish excess deaths for 2020 are on track to be normal. Very unlikely there'll be a sudden massive surge in the last month of 2020 given Sweden's near-zero COVID-linked death rate. Outside of the first wave excess death in 2020 has been lower than average for Sweden so it's already balanced out. My personal belief is Sweden saw larger deaths than Denmark/Norway in part due to their COVID policies, but they did not experience the complete disaster many predicted in March. Whether the trade off was worth it will be debated by public policy experts for years, and ultimately no one will agree. I feel the Danish economist's analysis is convincing w.r.t. "dry tinder". I fully agree with the last sentence though!