3 ms·
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 death
by 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!