sheepysheep wrote: » The Economist report clearly compared every state in North America with each other. Montana to California.https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker It also compared North America with western Europe.At the same time that covid-19 was devastating New York, cities in western Europe were also suffering severe outbreaks. If it can compare New York to Britain, there simply no reason not to also compare Sweden to Portugal. Also, regarding the gun control example. Do you not realise that only by comparing all these states with each other does that data emerge.
sheepysheep wrote: » The trouble with this is that it's been declared to be happening by the newspapers numerous times before.
Twenty cases of the coronavirus variant first discovered in South Africa have been confirmed in central Sweden – the country's first cluster outbreak of the variant that can't be linked to travel. The Västmanland region, west of Stockholm and home to the city of Västerås, on Wednesday confirmed that 20 people had tested positive for the B.1.351 variant.None of the cases can be linked to international travel
Boggles wrote: » Sorry? The newspapers have declared this fact numerous times before?
DylanJM wrote: » I imagine by that they mean that they cannot directly trace these cases back to a close contact that has just arrived in the country, suggesting the cases were picked up due to community transmission.
charlie14 wrote: » The Economist did a much more in-depth analysis of Europe than it did of North America and still didn`t see the need to make European wide comparisond. You posted the link, so if you have a problem with them only doing comparisons on a geographical regional basis, (as well as them taking into account the severity of the virus traveling eastwards in Europe) that backs up what many here have been saying for some time as regards Sweden, then take it up with them. Those ten states have the same commonality because they are in the same geographical area and have, by US standards, strict gun control. Seven of the ten had the lowest overall US firearm fatalities and homicides. One being the lowest because it was bordered by three of the others. Do you think with both those commonalities that the low firearm fatalities and homicides are just a coincidence or that comparing any of them with other states that have neither commonalities would be on a credible like-for-like basis ?
sheepysheep wrote: » I was making the point that 'Sweden is going into lockdown' has been reported in the newspapers repeatedly in the last few months.
charlie14 wrote: » A University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine report published by The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery March 6th 2019 found that ten of the states with the most restrictive gun control laws were in the Northeast. Seven of the ten had the lowest overall US firearm fatalities and homicides. Connecticut was lowest being bordered by three of the other nine.
humberklog wrote: » How are the people you'd be in contact with feelings on the handling of the situation? From i can read and hear the government still largely have the population on board. Are there significant numbers voicing unhappiness or regret? Are there public demonstrations of discontent or shows of descent within the government, unions, public service bodies?
Bit cynical wrote: » The people making health policy aren't trying to buy votes by making concessions to the electorate, granting and then withdrawing privileges.
We have had a falling number of cases for several weeks, but that decrease has tailed off and it looks like it is heading up again. That is very worrying. Right now we are not bringing in a general shutdown, but we are preparing to be able to use that part of the pandemic law," said Health Minister Lena Hallengren
Boggles wrote: » To suggest politicians are not being typical politicians in any democratic country is naive in the extreme.
Boggles wrote: » The just brought in legislation on the back of a couple of very poor opinion polls for the ruling party. To suggest politicians are not being typical politicians in any democratic country is naive in the extreme. Also they are worried about the rise in cases and the strains.
sheepysheep wrote: » On the subject of lockdown, right about now would be an ideal time to implement a 6 week lockdown there if they do make the decision that one is necessary. A once off 6 weeker would take them to the end of march, with the approach of summer and the progression of vaccinations they could probably start to open up for good in April.
Bit cynical wrote: » Report from Germany's DW TV. Looks like despite restrictions, things are still generally open. You can still meet up with friends (though numbers are restricted), travel around the country and so on. People used to a diet of RTE here in Ireland are probably wondering why deaths aren't through the roof (daily rates are about half that of Ireland at the moment). I think the reason for this is that they are not indulging in the stop start cycle common in Ireland and other countries. 1. Panic and impose heavy restrictions -> Cases fall. 2. Restrictions no longer sustainable so are lifted -> Cases rise. 3. Panic again and go to step 1. The reason Sweden haven't fallen for this is that day-to-day health policy is outside the scope of politics in that country. The people making health policy aren't trying to buy votes by making concessions to the electorate, granting and then withdrawing privileges.
sheepysheep wrote: » The Economist didn't do an in-depth analysis of any region. They provided a brief summary. Dishonest to call this in-depth. In fact, they didn't even mention Southern Europe or Ireland. I guess neither region is allowed to be analysed by your rationale. The Economist provided a host of excellently researched data and made it available to everyone open source for further analysis. There's a thing in Journalism called word count. Any analysis of N or S America or Europe would require a few thousand words. All you're trying to do is create a false premise that Sweden cannot be compared to Europe as a whole. It's a transparent logical fallacy to declare that because Sweden was compared to Northern Europe that it cannot also be compared to Southern Europe. Can you provide the research basis for such a premise? Is 'commonality' a new scientific research term?
Bit cynical wrote: » I'm not sure I agree with that. Their daily case rate has leveled off after falling from a peak during the Christmas period. It is possibly even rising slightly but this is hard to say. However the worst of winter will be over soon and with that cases will naturally begin to fall. The danger with one-off lockdowns is that when they are over there is often an overreaction among people trying to meet up after being cooped up. Then another lockdown has to be imposed. Lockdowns end up not being as "temporary" as initially envisaged. This is what we have seen in European states many of which are struggling with much higher deaths than Sweden.
sheepysheep wrote: » There's surely a case that the second lockdown is directly/indirectly responsible for the very high number of January deaths.
Bit cynical wrote: » I'm actually not suggesting that. What is different is that in Sweden day-to-day health policy is much more devolved to the institutions. There are also constitutional restraints on what politicians can do.
charlie14 wrote: » My understanding was that all health care decisions relating to the pandemic were in the hand of the Public Health Authority until devolving to the local authorities in October when they then starting introducing their own restrictions and recommendations.
charlie14 wrote: » Will you ever get over yourself. You found the Economist report and after reading the first section did your own analysis. I read it through and the analysis you did relating to Sweden to fit your narrative is not what the report says in relation to Sweden. Simple as that. The Economist did not compare countries on a European wide basis. It did so based on geography and that Covid was more severe going eastwards. Of the four regions the report noted that for Northern Europe Sweden`s excess Covid deaths were an "exception" to all other countries in the region. Exactly what many here have been saying for a long time. Theu posted graphs which clearly show how much of an "exception". If you wish to run around Europe or the rest of the world finding countries to suit your narrative, away with you. But to attempt to do so based on the Economist report, and attempting to say that if we should all used or imagination we would see what the report really meant to show, is so blatantly dishonest at this stage it`s comic farce.
sheepysheep wrote: » n Congratulations. Endless deflection, Strawmen, and bad science. You managed to fit 4 Strawmen and 1 Logical Fallacy into that piece. Strawman 1: I read the whole report not the first paragraph as you say. Strawman 2: No Narrative. I have clearly stated that the report clearly shows that Sweden excess deaths are poor compared to Northern Europe and better than 15 other countries in Europe. Strawman3: I'm nor running around Europe. I'm posting all excess death data available for Europe and comparing the results for all of Europe. Strawman4: No one was requested to use their imagination. Simply look at data. Logical fallacy: Your continued assertion that Sweden can only be compared to Northern Europe. Bad Science. Everything. You were asked to provide a scientific premises for this. The economist report would only be an implementation of the premise if one exists. As you have held this opinion for months I'm sure you will have plenty of citeable reports at hand. Thankfully, you've given up on 'commonality' whatever that was.
Bit cynical wrote: » Yes, however the point I was trying to make is that politicians have tended to take much more of a back seat with regard to the pandemic in Sweden than in other countries. Possibly someone living in Sweden could correct me here if I am wrong on this point. It is the prominence of politicians in Ireland and other countries, I would suggest, that leads to the stop-start cycle we have seen and that in many countries has led to much higher deaths than Sweden.
sheepysheep wrote: » Yes, Their ICU and death stats are very distinctly downward. I don't believe that one will be implemented and I'm not advocating for one. I would see a lockdown there now however as being distinctly different to those in W Europe for the last year. By April, with the end of winter, the longer days, vaccines numbers increasing daily and whatever herd immunity already exists no second lockdown would ever be necessary. Basically, I'm hoping for a distinct change in mood music over the next 6 weeks regarding this pandemic.
charlie14 wrote: » Why would I need to provide a scientific premise quoting a report you post when you are actually the one attempting to portray the report as saying something it clearly does not.
charlie14 wrote: » Sounds very much like that old tune that was being played here when Uppsala back in October announced it was imposing it`s own local lockdown measures. When is a lockdown not a lockdown ? When it`s in Sweden
Bit cynical wrote: » I'm not sure I agree with that. Their daily case rate has leveled off after falling from a peak during the Christmas period. It is possibly even rising slightly but this is hard to say. However the worst of winter will be over soon and with that cases will naturally begin to fall.
Boggles wrote: » Cases are up 25% in Stockholm the past couple of weeks. Their 7 day moving average is definitely upward. There is a big snow festival of sorts happening early March, the authorities have flagged it as a potential super spreader event.
sheepysheep wrote: » There's a bit of an uptick alright but ICU admissions, deaths on the downward slope.
