3 ms·

how should i interpret this chart? - Australia and Germany did well, Peru not so much? - The Swedish COVID-19 Response wasn't a disaster[1] - Brazil didn't m

how should i interpret this chart? - Australia and Germany did well, Peru not so much? - The Swedish COVID-19 Response wasn't a disaster[1] - Brazil didn't make so bad as widely reported by the media? References: [1]: https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/ https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Much of it is likely due to strength or weaknesses of various medical systems, as well as density/distribution of population. Remember this tracks deaths only, not case rates or hospitalization generally. I tend to think if you went into a hospital in Sweden, you got good care. The US did fairly well, but you also have to consider there are large areas that are very spread out geographically, large suburbs, etc. Seems like places that did the worst -- outside of the first wave when nobody was prepared -- are what you'd expect: places with poor, dense populations, and worse infrastructure.
- pelasaco 5y ago
  > Seems like places that did the worst -- outside of the first wave when nobody was prepared -- are what you'd expect: places with poor, dense populations, and worse infrastructure. Ok, that's make sense. I'm however more concerned in understand the "aftermath" from 2020 and 2021 regarding the Media narrative. Get all this data and correlate with what was being published live in in the media. I wish we could hold all the reporters, scientists and experts accountable for the amount of misinformation that was published mainly to generate clicks, support narrative and political stances.
tim333 5y ago
Sweden did quite well economically too https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/which-economies-have-done-best-and-worst-during-the-pandemic/21806917 https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/which-econom... although Denmark beat them in both economy and deaths. I guess if you've got a country of mostly responsible educated people you can say behave sensibly without the government legislating loads of rules.
- pelasaco 5y ago
  Germany gave itself a pat on the back the whole pandemic, and demonized Sweden, but looking the numbers, we have a totally different story. One of the main factors, said here is that Germany has a higher population density than Sweden, and the population trust more their government decisions[1] Reference: [1] https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/deutschland/keine-vierte-welle-trotz-aehnlicher-impfquote-warum-es-in-schweden-besser-laeuft-als-in-deutschland-b/ https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/deutschland/keine-vie...
IkmoIkmo 5y ago
In terms of excess death, those are correct interpretations. But a true measure of successful policy would've been some kind of death vs impact, corrected for difficult factor. Death is what the article covers. Impact would be the cost of the policy on everything else, e.g. mental health due to lockdowns, kids' learning falling behind due to lockdowns, bankruptcies and debt due to lockdowns etc. Some countries were able to get the same results with fewer strict lockdown measures of other countries, those countries can be said to be more successful. Of course one could correct for difficulty factor. That's a gray area. For example, do you include Japanese culture of masking and rule abidance? Depends on your perspective. But in any case, it's clear that countries with for example an average age of 18 like Nigeria, will be less impacted as a country like Italy, where the average person is 46. Knowing 50% of the population is almost over 50, make a big medical difference. Similarly, countries with high population density will do better than countries with little population density, etc. There's a ton of these factors that determine 'difficulty factor'. As such it's hard to really say who did well and who didn't. But no, Sweden wasn't a disaster. Australia and Germany did quite well, but Australia had some harsh measures that must be taken into account. Brazil indeed wasn't the worst of the bunch (although a top-25 spot is certainly not a good look, especially as only one other country in that list of 25 (Russia) has more absolute deaths, and outside the top 25 only the US has more, 600 thousand dead in Brazil is a disaster if you ask me, it's >10 years of homicides worth of death, in a country known for some of the worst gun violence and gang violence in the world.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

Much of it is likely due to strength or weaknesses of various medical systems, as well as density/distribution of population. Remember this tracks deaths only, not case rates or hospitalization generally. I tend to think if you went into a hospital in Sweden, you got good care. The US did fairly well, but you also have to consider there are large areas that are very spread out geographically, large suburbs, etc. Seems like places that did the worst -- outside of the first wave when nobody was prepared -- are what you'd expect: places with poor, dense populations, and worse infrastructure.

pelasaco 5y ago
> Seems like places that did the worst -- outside of the first wave when nobody was prepared -- are what you'd expect: places with poor, dense populations, and worse infrastructure. Ok, that's make sense. I'm however more concerned in understand the "aftermath" from 2020 and 2021 regarding the Media narrative. Get all this data and correlate with what was being published live in in the media. I wish we could hold all the reporters, scientists and experts accountable for the amount of misinformation that was published mainly to generate clicks, support narrative and political stances.

tim333 5y ago

Sweden did quite well economically too https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/which-economies-have-done-best-and-worst-during-the-pandemic/21806917 https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/which-econom... although Denmark beat them in both economy and deaths. I guess if you've got a country of mostly responsible educated people you can say behave sensibly without the government legislating loads of rules.

pelasaco 5y ago
Germany gave itself a pat on the back the whole pandemic, and demonized Sweden, but looking the numbers, we have a totally different story. One of the main factors, said here is that Germany has a higher population density than Sweden, and the population trust more their government decisions[1] Reference: [1] https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/deutschland/keine-vierte-welle-trotz-aehnlicher-impfquote-warum-es-in-schweden-besser-laeuft-als-in-deutschland-b/ https://www.businessinsider.de/politik/deutschland/keine-vie...

IkmoIkmo 5y ago

In terms of excess death, those are correct interpretations. But a true measure of successful policy would've been some kind of death vs impact, corrected for difficult factor. Death is what the article covers. Impact would be the cost of the policy on everything else, e.g. mental health due to lockdowns, kids' learning falling behind due to lockdowns, bankruptcies and debt due to lockdowns etc. Some countries were able to get the same results with fewer strict lockdown measures of other countries, those countries can be said to be more successful. Of course one could correct for difficulty factor. That's a gray area. For example, do you include Japanese culture of masking and rule abidance? Depends on your perspective. But in any case, it's clear that countries with for example an average age of 18 like Nigeria, will be less impacted as a country like Italy, where the average person is 46. Knowing 50% of the population is almost over 50, make a big medical difference. Similarly, countries with high population density will do better than countries with little population density, etc. There's a ton of these factors that determine 'difficulty factor'. As such it's hard to really say who did well and who didn't. But no, Sweden wasn't a disaster. Australia and Germany did quite well, but Australia had some harsh measures that must be taken into account. Brazil indeed wasn't the worst of the bunch (although a top-25 spot is certainly not a good look, especially as only one other country in that list of 25 (Russia) has more absolute deaths, and outside the top 25 only the US has more, 600 thousand dead in Brazil is a disaster if you ask me, it's >10 years of homicides worth of death, in a country known for some of the worst gun violence and gang violence in the world.