Sweden avoiding lockdown

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Thank you for putting this data together and demostrating a point I was unable communicate in such a manner.

Sweden is far from a failure when compared to Ireland with the correct data set.

I also want Sweden to be successful to prove restrictions are not an effective tool

I tried to disprove your statement last night which you made without caveats using numbers that Ireland and Sweden have as you said "a similar death rate"

Thanks to the poster who put the graph together to explain it even better why that statement was incorrect.

john4321 wrote: »

I tried to disprove your statement last night which you made without caveats using numbers that Ireland and Sweden have as you said "a similar death rate"

Thanks to the poster who put the graph together to explain it even better why that statement was incorrect.

Are you ok?

Arghus wrote: »

The numbers are there Fintan.

Your argument is false.

The fact that you can only answer with gibberish is very telling.

Will you take a look at the graphs in the previous posts.

The other poster has, as expected, completely misinterpreted the information.

Have a go yourself and see do the figures mean Sweden was a failure

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Are you ok?

I'm great and thanks for asking.

So back to the topic in question you have stated multiple times the death date from Covid between Ireland and Sweden is similar now we have a nice graph as well as the numbers to disprove this.

Can we agree the statement you have made a few times now based on the facts is false and it's not a good idea to post false information?

john4321 wrote: »

I'm great and thanks for asking.

So back to the topic in question you have stated multiple times the death date from Covid between Ireland and Sweden is similar now we have a nice graph as well as the numbers to disprove this.

Can we agree the statement you have made a few times now based on the facts is false and it's not a good idea to post false information?

I'd advise you stop highlighting your inability to interpret the data that poster has put together.

I can only assume you are looking at the red line on the graph that continues upwards and you have neither looked at the figures used or read the posters explanation?

If not, I have no idea what you are interpreting?

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Will you take a look at the graphs in the previous posts.

The other poster has, as expected, completely misinterpreted the information.

Have a go yourself and see do the figures mean Sweden was a failure

Twice our population. Three times, strictly speaking slightly over 3 times, the death rate amongst the over 65's.

Failure? Well, I wouldn't call it a success...

Arghus wrote: »

Twice our population. Three times, strictly speaking slightly over 3 times, the death rate amongst the over 65's.

Failure? Well, I wouldn't call it a success...

Are you suggesting Sweden have twice our population over 65's?

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Are you suggesting Sweden have twice our population over 65's?

We have a slightly smaller proportion of people over 65: 13% to their 20%. That's not enough to explain the disparity in their death figures.

Ce he sin

Arghus wrote: »

We have a slightly smaller proportion of people over 65: 13% to their 20%. That's not enough to explain the disparity in their death figures.

It fact and if those figures are correct, it goes close. 13% of our 4.9m is 637,000. 20% of their 10m or so is 2,000,000 which is slightly more than three times our figure so you'd expect three times as many deaths in this age cohort.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Are you suggesting Sweden have twice our population over 65's?

Do you need to see the pic again in the other thread of the 4 lads working hard with them goalposts?

You made a blanket statement as fact that Ireland had a similar death rate as Sweden from Covid. No caveats, no mention of age profile, what they eat for dinner etc.

I and other posters challenge that statement and you decide to double down and change the criteria. This is disingenuous posting in my opinion and the only reason I decided to engage in replying.

Again an honest opinion I would have been delighted if the Swedish strategy was successful and I think not one person on this thread would have wanted it to fail as it would have given a great understanding on how to handle a similar pandemic in a different manor.

Ireland did not have this option and chose a stricter lockdown which as we can all see was effective.

john4321 wrote: »

Do you need to see the pic again in the other thread of the 4 lads working hard with them goalposts?

You made a blanket statement as fact that Ireland had a similar death rate as Sweden from Covid. No caveats, no mention of age profile, what they eat for dinner etc.

I and other posters challenge that statement and you decide to double down and change the criteria. This is disingenuous posting in my opinion and the only reason I decided to engage in replying.

Again an honest opinion I would have been delighted if the Swedish strategy was successful and I think not one person on this thread would have wanted it to fail as it would have given a great understanding on how to handle a similar pandemic in a different manor.

Ireland did not have this option and chose a stricter lockdown which as we can all see was effective.

You are displaying an inability to interpret the graph you think is proving you are correct.

Its amusing if I honest

CalamariFritti

Arghus wrote: »

We have a slightly smaller proportion of people over 65: 13% to their 20%. That's not enough to explain the disparity in their death figures.

But it kinda matches though doesn't it?

They have 10m population we have 5m. They have 5,700 deaths we have 1,700. If you halved their deaths to compare to our population size that'e 2,850. Thats our number plus 50%

They have 20% over 65s thats 2m, again halved thats 1m. We have 13% thats 650k. Their number is again our number plus 50%.

The ratio between over 65s and deaths is the same in both countries. Those extra deaths they have seem to correlate exactly to their greater number of over 65s.

Arghus wrote: »

We have a slightly smaller proportion of people over 65: 13% to their 20%. That's not enough to explain the disparity in their death figures.

Ill try explain in a different way

Sweden have a death rate of 0.21 % of the over 65 population

Ireland have a death rate of 0.25% of the over 65 population

Those figures are from the figures bit cynical sourced and have variations in data ie I've had to include Swedens population from 60+ but Ireland from 65+

Okay, fair cop. I can admit there's some food for thought there.

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, fair cop. I can admit there's some food for thought there.

Come again, Ive dropped my monocle

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You are displaying an inability to interpret the graph you think is proving you are correct.

Its amusing if I honest

Please feel free to address the points in my post and break down the parts you do not agree with.

It's not a fair debate when you just keep saying I have an inability to do something.

Just to recap the only point is the issue I have is with your blanket statement regarding Ireland and Sweden having similar death rates without any cavates.

Ce he sin

john4321 wrote: »

I'm great and thanks for asking.

So back to the topic in question you have stated multiple times the death date from Covid between Ireland and Sweden is similar now we have a nice graph as well as the numbers to disprove this.

Can we agree the statement you have made a few times now based on the facts is false and it's not a good idea to post false information?

As the other posters here don't have the courtesy to point out where you're misinterpreting the graph, here goes:
The orange line (Sweden) goes higher than the blue line (Ireland). That's not because of worse figures, it's because the data available doesn't allow you to establish a figure for Ireland for the category 80 to 90 whereas the Swedish data does. You'll see that we stop at age 80 while they go to 85. That's because our data has a figure for 75 to 84 which the person who produced the graph has taken at it halfway point of 80 while the Swedes produce a figure for 80 to 90 which has been taken as 85. The significant thing is how closely one line tracks the other, not how far it goes.

joeguevara

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ill try explain in a different way

Sweden have a death rate of 0.21 % of the over 65 population

Ireland have a death rate of 0.25% of the over 65 population

Those figures are from the figures bit cynical sourced and have variations in data ie I've had to include Swedens population from 60+ but Ireland from 65+

Fintan I have been reading a lot of your posts and you are an extremely articulate person and you have a great comprehension of statistics and how to interpret them. Notwithstanding what I have posted on the matter I really can’t decide what the best approach is. Every day something comes up that contradicts something that appeared correct. While from a professional point of view I remained largely unaffected throughout this, from a personal point of view I only met my family for the first time two weeks ago and probably won’t again for a month. People arguing about pubs is ridiculous as it is irrelevant to punters (obviously relevant to employees).

I hope correct decisions are made but I am experiencing people resisting guidance for the sake of it.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Come again, Ive dropped my monocle

Every once in a while I am wrong and I have no problem acknowledging that.

Ce he sin wrote: »

As the other posters here don't have the courtesy to point out where you're misinterpreting the graph, here goes:
The orange line (Sweden) goes higher than the blue line (Ireland). That's not because of worse figures, it's because the data available doesn't allow you to establish a figure for Ireland for the category 80 to 90 whereas the Swedish data does. You'll see that we stop at age 80 while they go to 85. That's because our data has a figure for 75 to 84 which the person who produced the graph has taken at it halfway point of 80 while the Swedes produce a figure for 80 to 90 which has been taken as 85. The significant thing is how closely one line tracks the other, not how far it goes.

Sorry I thought I could not have made my point any clearer in my other posts i'm not here to argue to age profile, lifestyle, climate factors etc.

I just just trying to point out a statement made without and additional information or comparisons were incorrect and I think this should be flagged and challenged.

john4321 wrote: »

Please feel free to address the points in my post and break down the parts you do not agree with.

It's not a fair debate when you just keep saying I have an inability to do something.

Just to recap the only point is the issue I have is with your blanket statement regarding Ireland and Sweden having similar death rates without any cavates.

Ill apologise for being disparaging, but you did engage in debate last evening by posting a meme.

Anyhow, I wasnt articulate enough to carry out the construction of the data as bit cynical did, which proved the point I was trying to articulate for a while now

Which was the numbers are similar

Bit cynical

Further to an earlier chart in this post, I wanted to see if one set of data stood out from the other when intermingled. Since the age brackets overlap for Sweden and Ireland we can combine them in one plot:

Data points alternate between Ireland and Sweden. Looking at the chart, it is very hard to tell which data point is Ireland and which is Sweden; they fit together very well. There is just one point at age 55 (representing the 50 to 60 age bracket) which comes from Sweden. It is higher than it should be for a good fit but only just.

[Edit: I think the point at age 75 (also Sweden) is slightly lower, again only just, for a good fit. This corresponds to the observation made in the earlier post, that at 75 or thereabouts you are slightly better off in Sweden.]

The conclusion from this is that whatever age you are, you have pretty much the same chance of succumbing to Covid-19 whether you are in Ireland or Sweden, other things being equal.

joeguevara wrote: »

Fintan I have been reading a lot of your posts and you are an extremely articulate person and you have a great comprehension of statistics and how to interpret them. Notwithstanding what I have posted on the matter I really can’t decide what the best approach is. Every day something comes up that contradicts something that appeared correct. While from a professional point of view I remained largely unaffected throughout this, from a personal point of view I only met my family for the first time two weeks ago and probably won’t again for a month. People arguing about pubs is ridiculous as it is irrelevant to punters (obviously relevant to employees).

I hope correct decisions are made but I am experiencing people resisting guidance for the sake of it.

The worry is that Swedens approach is disregarded as having a high cost of life when that may not be the case.

Bit cynical wrote: »

The conclusion from this is that whatever age you are, you have pretty much the same chance of succumbing to Covid-19 whether you are in Ireland or Sweden, other things being equal.

Exactly.

They way you can articulate that data makes me sound like Frank Spencer

joeguevara

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The worry is that Swedens approach is disregarded as having a high cost of life when that may not be the case.

I completely agree but one worry is relying on statistics that might not be the full picture. For example Netherlands have come out to state their death rate may be double as they didn’t include deaths not in hospitals and nursing homes. If someone discusses statistics and alternative mitigants, brilliant.

Ce he sin

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The worry is that Swedens approach is disregarded as having a high cost of life when that may not be the case.

Then again, it may. It just depends on who you wish to compare with. There are not many in Sweden who would compare their figures with those of Ireland. There are however many who would compare them to Norway and that comparison doesn't look good if you're Swedish. As to whether or not this will continue long term, I'm afraid nobody knows.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ill apologise for being disparaging, but you did engage in debate last evening by posting a meme.

Anyhow, I wasnt articulate enough to carry out the construction of the data as bit cynical did, which proved the point I was trying to articulate for a while now

Which was the numbers are similar

What I would like is to turn these threads back into something useful and engaging. It's nothing personal at all just when a statement is made it needs to be accurate or else it will be called out. I'm sure you can agree thats important.

If I for example could post Sweden has a death rate 20 times higher than Ireland from Covid. I would hope you would challenge this as its made up and false.

The points brought up about age profile of death are interesting\concerning\disappointing and should be discussed and my main hope from this is that every country learns how to handle the scenario better.