2 ms·
Your stringency argument falls flat on its face when the source for your argument skips the first 24 months of the pandemic. That same timeframe was when the v
by seizethegdgap 4y ago
Your stringency argument falls flat on its face when the source for your argument skips the first 24 months of the pandemic. That same timeframe was when the variants were much more lethal, and the vaccine didn't exist for the first 12 months.
Your excess deaths chart shows Sweden's rising by 5,000 people from 2019 to 2020, while Norway and Denmark's fell.
This image (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0168851021002220-gr1.jpg https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S01688510210022...) from this study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851021002220 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885102...) is a direct refutation of your argument.
- toolz 4y agoAh, it's been a while since I looked at that chart, didn't realize they had pruned the data to 2022, which is _not_ how long the stringency index measured, which you would know if you had spent any time researching this category study as the oxford stringency index is by _far_ the most cited and utilized index of covid policy. If you actually care about the subject feel free to look it up yourself, don't take my word for it as the measurements are all open source on github, including the methodology used to calculate the index.