Sweden avoiding lockdown

biko wrote: »

Sweden hitting 13K dead any day now.

They have already passed that figure of 13K.dead. By last Friday it was 13,003.

biko wrote: »

Sweden hitting 13K dead any day now.

Just over it now (13003) according to Worldometre.

Bit cynical

Sweden currently about the same number of deaths per capita as the EU as a whole. Sadly, however, the figure for the EU is rising more sharply than in Sweden at present.

biko

Sweden hitting 13K dead any day now.

Bit cynical

humberklog wrote: »

Although it is a thread on Sweden, Norway and Finland keep getting thrown into the mix.

Both those countries have done exceptionally well. Does anyone know what they've done right? Were they early mask and distance adopters? Do they foriegn holiday less? Did they have swifter, harsher and prolonged lockdowns (for what "lockdown" means in that country), what did they do to protect the elderly and vulnerable?

I think European countries have more to learn about what to do from those countries than what not to do from Sweden.

The problem is that Norway and Finland have actually had fewer internal restrictions than Sweden, so if we're looking to justify lockdowns in Ireland, sadly, we have to look elsewhere.

They have low BAME populations compared to Sweden and many other European countries and they are more peripheral geographically. They put more restrictions on foreign arrivals than other countries and as we have seen earlier in the thread, they don't have the same tradition of Alpine skiiing in late winter which brought a lot of the virus into Sweden in the early days. These are some of the reasons they have been able to get away with lower restrictions than Sweden and still have fewer deaths.

Here's a chart of stringency of measures of the three countries and Ireland. Ireland is among the highest for restrictions in the EU and Finland the lowest. Finland also has the lowest rates of deaths in the EU from Covid.

With a 14 day rolling average of over 540 per 100,000 nationally and high levels of test positivity it probably does not make much difference, but I would be skeptical of Sweden`s authorities believing they are experiencing a third wave for the last few weeks rather than just an upsurge from their present wave.

W.H.O. European Director Hans Kluge has said that after a 6 week decline in numbers for Europe, last week they began to rise giving cause to believe they were now experiencing a third wave.
If Sweden was to experience a third wave, then I would have thought it would be on the basis of the their first and second
where they were a few weeks behind most of Europe rather than a few weeks ahead ?

sheepysheep wrote: »

Had a look. Those were two very longwinded posts.

Clarify what you want addressed and I will.

I already did.

I repeatedly challenged you on Eurostat which you ignored. You lied that I had, and given two of the post numbers it appears you could not find them.
Strange from someone so adapt at going through the posts of others and being hypocritical about theirs.

You have now further shown just how deceitful and dishonest a poster you are. After ignoring my many challenges to you repeatedly re-posting a section of one of my posts as to why you altered it, It now re-appears (Post #8715) as originally posted with no explanation other than your familiar attempts at deflection when caught out.

You have shown yourself repeatedly to be a lying deceitful posted with no boundaries as to how low a level you will go too attempting to further your agenda.
I have already wasted far to much time with you and have no interest on wasting any more on your rubbish.

biko

The Swedes are getting pissed at restrictions, which are way less strict than here

cnocbui

Deleted User wrote: »

Christ, I looked at that awful paper cnocbui linked.

"We believe". "We believe". "We believe".

That paper would be laughed at by a serious scientist. It'd be laughed at by a university lecturer if it was handed in as an assignment. There's no methodology, no meaningful data sources and almost everything is based on either inference or assumptions.

They use evidence of olympic medals in downhill skiing as evidence of desire for population to go alpine skiing, but they don't normalise for population. They then say that although Norway has a far higher olympic medal count is downhill (alpine) skiing, because nordic skiing is also popular in Norway, using medals as a proxy isn't valid.

The paper has only 10 references, hasn't been peer reviewed despite being published last August, and has only been cited 7 times ever.

Of course, that assumes cnocbui read the paper which of course he didn't.

In science, it is common to say 'believe' because the scientific method is predicated on the principle that findings and conclusions are always open to questioning by further research or experimentation. They gain credibility by replication, but not certainty.

Some theories are very highly regarded as to approach being regarded as facts, but even those are always theoretically open to challenge.

It's good form to acknowledge that certainty is questionable.

Speaking of not reading... I suggest you take up the lack in methodology and academic acumen with the authors:

Christian Bjørnskov is professor of economics at Aarhus University in Aarhus, Denmark.

He is also affiliated researcher at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN) in Stockholm, Sweden.

Professor Bjørnskov visiting professor at the University of Göttingen and the University of Heidelberg, and am associated with the Centre for Political Studies in Copenhagen and the Institute of Economic Affairs in London.

...

Daniel Klein is professor of economics and JIN Chair at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where he leads a program in Adam Smith.

He is also associate fellow at the Ratio Institute (Stockholm) and chief editor of Econ Journal Watch.

And your academic qualifactions are...?

[Deleted User]

Christ, I looked at that awful paper cnocbui linked.

13It is our impression, however, that, with increasing wealth and worsening ski conditions inSweden due to warmer winters(reducing demand especially at the smaller slopescloser to Stockholm), Swedes have increasingly traveled to the Alps to ski. Researchby FHM has ascertained that much of Sweden’s early Covid infectionscame from Italy and Austria. Karin TegmarkWisellof the FHMsaid: “In our analyzes, we clearly see the enormous imports from Italy.”The timing of sport-break within Sweden mighthave beencausal: The areas of Malmöand Gothenburg have throughout the pandemic had much lower death rates than Stockholm, and they had earlier sport-breaks. There are other differences, such as population density, but one thing that was not different was light-lockdown: Malmöand Gothenburg had the same policy as Stockholm.What about the other three Nordic countries? They too have sport-break:Sport-break2020 dates outside of Sweden:•Denmark(all): February 13-21•Osloand some other parts (not all) of Norway: February 17-21•Helsinkiand some other parts (not all) of Finland: February17-21Thus, while Stockholm had its break during Week 9,all of Denmark, parts of Norway including Oslo, and parts of Finland including Helsinkihad their sport-break during Week 8 (February 17-23) or earlier.If they vacationed in the Alpine region, they would have been there when Covid was less widespread in northern Italy. Furthermore, we believe that Swedes, particularly from Stockholm, do more international vacation travel than their counterparts in DK/NO/FI, and, especially, do much more travel to Alps for skiing.According to the World Bank (2020), Sweden has in recent years had 21.3 million international outbound tourist departures, which is 77% more departures per million people than in DK/NO/FI.26We believe that Danes are less avid downhillskiers.Denmark isan exceedingly flat countrywithno ski slopes to speak of, and no historic tradition of downhill skiing. One indication of a country’s avidity for a sport is whether the societal ladder of activity and emulation rises to excellence. Here is the tally from Wikipediaof Olympic medal winners in Alpine (downhill)skiing, by nation:

"We believe". "We believe". "We believe".

That paper would be laughed at by a serious scientist. It'd be laughed at by a university lecturer if it was handed in as an assignment. There's no methodology, no meaningful data sources and almost everything is based on either inference or assumptions.

They use evidence of olympic medals in downhill skiing as evidence of desire for population to go alpine skiing, but they don't normalise for population. They then say that although Norway has a far higher olympic medal count is downhill (alpine) skiing, because nordic skiing is also popular in Norway, using medals as a proxy isn't valid.

The paper has only 10 references, hasn't been peer reviewed despite being published last August, and has only been cited 7 times ever.

Of course, that assumes cnocbui read the paper which of course he didn't.

[Deleted User]

cnocbui wrote: »

The majority of Sweden's relatively poor performance was accounted for by just a single city; Stolkholm. I don't think it's so much the Norse, Finns and Danes did anything remarkably better, It's more that conspiring circumstances just made Stolkholm a perfect wave event. Things like concentration of elderly care, the subway, a culture of alpine skiing, etc. https://www.aier.org/article/swedens-high-covid-death-rates-among-the-nordics-dry-tinder-and-other-important-factors/

Also, I think people are trying to rationalise something - a virus spredaing among humans - too much as if logic can derive answers and patterns from something that likely is largely chaotic and non linear in nature.

Oh look, not an original thought, as suspected: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/5/20/21257136/covid-19-future-pandemic-chaos

Norway has a concentration of elderly care in and around oslo.
Oslo has a subway system (5 lines & 85km vs Stockholm's 7 lines & 105km)
Oslo has a culture of Alpine&Nordic Skiing and it's a standard middle class thing to have cabins in the North or Northwest for in-between visits to the continent for winter-skiing.

It's almost as if, almost a year into this thread you're still waffling and making basic factual errors ��

Why is Norway doing better?

National lockdown on 12th of March 2020
Closed Oslo Gardermoen on 13th of March 2020
Complete travel ban on 16th of March 2020

At the same time, they invested in testing & tracing capacity from the get go.

Or in cnocbui's words "they got lucky and Stockholm is special for reasons that it shares with Oslo". They also got lucky during the second wave, and miraculously got lucky during the third wave.

I shouldn't be surprised by just how dumb some of the arguments are and yet....

I flew out of Oslo on March 3rd last year, and I was back for 2.5 weeks in August. I happen to have family there, and shockingly, that means I'm actually aware of what they've done differently and what they continue to do differently. You're a bad joke cnocbui.

cnocbui wrote: »

The majority of Sweden's relatively poor performance was accounted for by just a single city; Stolkholm. I don't think it's so much the Norse, Finns and Danes did anything remarkably better, It's more that conspiring circumstances just made Stolkholm a perfect wave event. Things like concentration of elderly care, the subway, a culture of alpine skiing, etc. https://www.aier.org/article/swedens-high-covid-death-rates-among-the-nordics-dry-tinder-and-other-important-factors/

Also, I think people are trying to rationalise something - a virus spredaing among humans - too much as if logic can derive answers and patterns from something that likely is largely chaotic and non linear in nature.

Oh look, not an original thought, as suspected: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/5/20/21257136/covid-19-future-pandemic-chaos

While there may be some merit in what you say regarding Stockholm for Sweden`s first wave, but I don`t see it stands for their second where the spread of infections is national.
Their Public Health Authority worst case scenario for a second wave nationally was, (far as I recall 3,800 deaths). Some here scoffed at that figure being too high due to perceived levels of immunity, but that figure has now doubled.

I would find it difficult not to see transmission as linear.
The vast number of cases are through person to person contact or close contact. We know that from contact tracing. Especially with clusters of infections.

https://www.keepeek.com//Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-europe-2020_85e4b6a1-en#page1

humberklog wrote: »

Although it is a thread on Sweden, Norway and Finland keep getting thrown into the mix.

Both those countries have done exceptionally well. Does anyone know what they've done right? Were they early mask and distance adopters? Do they foriegn holiday less? Did they have swifter, harsher and prolonged lockdowns (for what "lockdown" means in that country), what did they do to protect the elderly and vulnerable?

I think European countries have more to learn about what to do from those countries than what not to do from Sweden.

This is some data regarding the EU countries response to the first wave.

I don't know if it's helpful but it does address mask wearing, school closures etc.

---

Philip O'Connor (irish journo living in Sweden) is back on with Dunphy's podcast (The Stand) today. Kinda handy for hearing what's happening there in the now.

cnocbui wrote: »

The majority of Sweden's relatively poor performance was accounted for by just a single city; Stolkholm. I don't think it's so much the Norse, Finns and Danes did anything remarkably better, It's more that conspiring circumstances just made Stolkholm a perfect wave event. Things like concentration of elderly care, the subway, a culture of alpine skiing, etc.

Yeah, Swedes to my experience go Alpine skiing en masse.
Going back a few months I read/heard an interesting detail about Somalis in Sweden (Stockholm in particular). They were one of he hardest hit groups at the outset. This was put down to a number of reasons:
a breakdown in communication (all the gov. info was only put out in Swedish), Somali men drive a huge amount of the taxi fleet (to that I do know for sure, in particular at the airport), Somalis live with larger families in smaller accommodation in communities that mingle more (markets, mosques etc.), a lot of Somalis and other immigrants work in health/aged care support.
Also a lack of Vit. D has a more pronounced affects on people from sunnier climates living in darker parts of the world.

But Norway and Finland and Denmark are some of the best in class in the EU. I've only been to Sweden (meh), Norway (I liked!) and Denmark (pfft), I was never in Finland but those 3 countries I found to be very different from each other.
If anything I find the Swedes to be more like middle class Dutch or stuffy Home Counties English.

The Swedes didn't handle the situation well. Their neighbours handled it starkly better. I kinda half know what the Swedes did wrong but I don't know what Nr, Dk and F did right.

Even allowing for Chaos Theory (exchange butterfly flapping its wings for man in China eating the head of a bat) there's surely lessons to be learned.

cnocbui

humberklog wrote: »

Although it is a thread on Sweden, Norway and Finland keep getting thrown into the mix.

Both those countries have done exceptionally well. Does anyone know what they've done right? Were they early mask and distance adopters? Do they foriegn holiday less? Did they have swifter, harsher and prolonged lockdowns (for what "lockdown" means in that country), what did they do to protect the elderly and vulnerable?

I think European countries have more to learn about what to do from those countries than what not to do from Sweden.

The majority of Sweden's relatively poor performance was accounted for by just a single city; Stolkholm. I don't think it's so much the Norse, Finns and Danes did anything remarkably better, It's more that conspiring circumstances just made Stolkholm a perfect wave event. Things like concentration of elderly care, the subway, a culture of alpine skiing, etc. https://www.aier.org/article/swedens-high-covid-death-rates-among-the-nordics-dry-tinder-and-other-important-factors/

Also, I think people are trying to rationalise something - a virus spredaing among humans - too much as if logic can derive answers and patterns from something that likely is largely chaotic and non linear in nature.

Oh look, not an original thought, as suspected: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/5/20/21257136/covid-19-future-pandemic-chaos

Although it is a thread on Sweden, Norway and Finland keep getting thrown into the mix.

Both those countries have done exceptionally well. Does anyone know what they've done right? Were they early mask and distance adopters? Do they foriegn holiday less? Did they have swifter, harsher and prolonged lockdowns (for what "lockdown" means in that country), what did they do to protect the elderly and vulnerable?

I think European countries have more to learn about what to do from those countries than what not to do from Sweden.

charlie14 wrote: »

LOL. You really are a joke.

You posted the Economist report and jumped all over it when you believed it supported you narrative, but now when you realise it did the exact opposite it`s a newspaper report.

Says all that needs to be said about you at this stage on the subject and rather than continue with your endless and continual attempts at distraction cluttering up the place past time to get back to the title of this thread.

I think most reasonable people would openly acknowledge that a 61 page report on a topic would contain far more detail than a newspaper report.

The economist report doesn't support any narrative. It's simply data.

Here's the Economist report.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

Here's the Headline:

Tracking covid-19 excess deaths across countries:

And here's the data on excess deaths.

You're assertion that this data is not for comparison is simply nonsense.

This data allows a direct comparison between Sweden and Lockdown countries on a very important metric.

Good data. Very insightful.

charlie14 wrote: »

I already have provided you with two post numbers that show you have lied which you again are attempting to ignore.
I`m not going to waste more time posting the rest to have them ignored as well.
Of course you are allowed to put a poster on ignore. But to do so for reason of their post effecting your moral sensibilities is hypocritical considering you own support for an immoral experiment.

The particular poster that put me on ignore didn`t do so due to me misrepresenting data but rather an unwillingness to debate points made in their own post. Which was fair enough and I did that poster the courtesy of,for first the first time ever on here, of doing likewise.

Had a look. Those were two very longwinded posts.

Clarify what you want addressed and I will.

charlie14 wrote: »

LOL. You really are a joke.

You posted the Economist report and jumped all over it when you believed it supported you narrative, but now when you realise it did the exact opposite it`s a newspaper report.

Says all that needs to be said about you at this stage on the subject and rather than continue with your endless and continual attempts at distraction cluttering up the place past time to get back to the title of this thread.

So, no comparative studies.

Would only take you a minute.

sheepysheep wrote: »

I didn't use a Nurenburg defense, whatever that is. You brought that up not me.

Some people think it's immoral to have sex before marriage, some people don't. Thankfully people like you don't get to lay down the law on this kind of stuff anymore. You'd probably fit in well with the Taliban.

Please quote these parameters that you keep referencing.

It should be easy to quote them.

Where are all these comparative studies that you reference.

Please reference 3 or 4 and I'll take a look.

A 200 page OECD report would most certainly negate any report in any newspaper.

LOL. You really are a joke.

You posted the Economist report and jumped all over it when you believed it supported you narrative, but now when you realise it did the exact opposite it`s a newspaper report.

Says all that needs to be said about you at this stage on the subject and rather than continue with your endless and continual attempts at distraction cluttering up the place past time to get back to the title of this thread.

sheepysheep wrote: »

Please quote these posts and I'll deal with them.

I'm allowed to put posters on Ignore. One mod recently did so to you.

You still misrepresented data.

Although, on that issue, I think the problem is that you don't know the difference between houses and people.

I already have provided you with two post numbers that show you have lied which you again are attempting to ignore.
I`m not going to waste more time posting the rest to have them ignored as well.
Of course you are allowed to put a poster on ignore. But to do so for reason of their post effecting your moral sensibilities is hypocritical considering you own support for an immoral experiment.

The particular poster that put me on ignore didn`t do so due to me misrepresenting data but rather an unwillingness to debate points made in their own post. Which was fair enough and I did that poster the courtesy of,for first the first time ever on here, of doing likewise.

charlie14 wrote: »

If you are going to use a Nuremberg defence on morality then of course that will be the inference. Your on position on immoral practice doesn`t do you any favors in that regard either

The OECD report is what it is. A report that for the first few months of this pandemic lists the excess death for Europe.

The Economist report shows end of year Covid-19 excess deaths for the four regions of Europe and clearly states why it used the parameters it did. For Northern Europe it specifically mentions Sweden`s Covid-19 deaths as an exception and graphically shows that.
While your version of "normal" may suit your narrative, it is often far from the case when comparative studies of European countries are made.

So no it does not negate your own post of The Economist report on Sweden`s excess deaths regionally and neither does the OECD report covering the first few months of this pandemic

I didn't use a Nurenburg defense, whatever that is. You brought that up not me.

Some people think it's immoral to have sex before marriage, some people don't. Thankfully people like you don't get to lay down the law on this kind of stuff anymore. You'd probably fit in well with the Taliban.

Please quote these parameters that you keep referencing.

It should be easy to quote them.

Where are all these comparative studies that you reference.

Please reference 3 or 4 and I'll take a look.

A 200 page OECD report would most certainly negate any report in any newspaper.

sheepysheep wrote: »

There's so much angry BS in here it's hardly worth dealing, but.

The OECD report establishes once and for all that Sweden is normally compared as a whole with EU27 and indeed other European countries.

This demolishes your case that only a regional comparison is appropriate.

The Economist data is excellent and shows exactly what the data indicates. That Sweden ended up with lower excess deaths than (currently) 16 countries.

If it states that Sweden can only be compared with Norterh Europe, please provide a quote.

You'll have to post that Nurenburg defence about morality. I kinda knew you'd be the kind to bring up Nazi's.

If you are going to use a Nuremberg defence on morality then of course that will be the inference. Your on position on immoral practice doesn`t do you any favors in that regard either

The OECD report is what it is. A report that for the first few months of this pandemic lists the excess death for Europe.

The Economist report shows end of year Covid-19 excess deaths for the four regions of Europe and clearly states why it used the parameters it did. For Northern Europe it specifically mentions Sweden`s Covid-19 deaths as an exception and graphically shows that.
While your version of "normal" may suit your narrative, it is often far from the case when comparative studies of European countries are made.

So no it does not negate your own post of The Economist report on Sweden`s excess deaths regionally and neither does the OECD report covering the first few months of this pandemic

charlie14 wrote: »

More a case of making points that you are attempting to avoid than answering questions I have not been asked.

A complete lie. Quite a number of posters here have also made the point that comparing the Nordic countries is a more equitable comparison than running willy nilly around the world doing so.
A report from The Economist you posted is in agreement also and clearly gave the reasons why it believed so.

So now an O.E.C.D report covering a few months of this pandemic is the norm, yet according to you Eurostat statistics are "classic trolling misinformation.
You didn`t seem to have a problem with The Economist report. Not that is until it was pointed out to you that it`s finding on Sweden were the opposite of what you believed it said.

When it comes to science (and now immorality) you are a complete hypocrite.

You have backed a strategy of acquired herd immunity where even the architect of the strategy was finally forced to admit it was immoral. Yet for you it`s the Nuremberg trials defense of being in the eye of the beholder. You have also backed the same strategy on face masks where all the science from Sweden`s own Karolinska Institute and The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences say otherwise.
The rest of your post is just your by now oh so familiar blatant attempts at distracting from the findings of a report you yourself published and your anti science views.

There's so much angry BS in here it's hardly worth dealing, but.

The OECD report establishes once and for all that Sweden is normally compared as a whole with EU27 and indeed other European countries.

This demolishes your case that only a regional comparison is appropriate.

The Economist data is excellent and shows exactly what the data indicates. That Sweden ended up with lower excess deaths than (currently) 16 countries.

If it states that Sweden can only be compared with Norterh Europe, please provide a quote.

You'll have to post that Nurenburg defence about morality. I kinda knew you'd be the kind to bring up Nazi's.

charlie14 wrote: »

Well at least that post has made one thing clear.
That you are a liar.

On you terming statistics from Eurostat as "typical trolling misinformation" I have challenged you at least twice. Post #8389 and Post#8398. Both of which you ignored.
When challenged by another poster on the same you also ignored, but now according to you that was on moral grounds.
Quite a statement from someone from their own self appointed lofty perch on the moral high ground who is a supporter of an immoral attempt of acquired herd immunity.

I have also challenged you on numerous occasions as to why you persistently posted an altered copy and paste partial post of mine which you also consistently ignored.
You also made the claim that I did not understand the difference between infection fatality rate and case fatality rate. Again when challenged on numerous occasions you did not wish to discuss the subject while at the same time continuing to publishing the same allegation.

Throw in your allegations of me being alt-right anti science and not only are you a liar, you are also a hypocrite and fair to say the most disingenuous poster in all my time here I have had engage with me.

It's hard to believe that you actually want to bring IFR up again seeing as how many posters have made a fool of you on this subject.

But as you asked, from the beginning.

I replied to another poster pointing out that you didn't understand the difference between IFR and CFR. You don't.

You reply (below, bolded) immediately showed your ignorance on the subject. Its Case fatality ratio not confirmed fatality ratio. An immediate howler pointed out to you by another frustrated poster.

CFR is the confirmed fatality rate. The actual percentage of fatalities to confirmed cases of infections.

IFR is the percentage rate of fatalities based on the assumed number of infection. It is based on conjecture.

Nobody can even agree on what this conjectured rate of infection is. It varies from a multiple of anything from 50% greater than actual confirmed cases, to a multiple 1,000% or even higher.

Here is your 'Mysterious ?' lovingly restored. If you think it a '?' can save that sentence, good luck to you.

Your original point was that I did not understand the difference between IFR and CFR.
Did you cut my post because you did not really understand the difference that CFR is a simple verifiable mathematical equation, whereas IFR is mathematical goobbledygook based on the principal of "whatever you`re having yourself" where in the three instances it has been attempted, using different base percentages, it has been shown a complete failure ?

Here again is the WHO scientific brief on both CFR and IFR calculations which i have posted a few times.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commen...-from-covid-19

And here is a quote from that report.

The true severity of a disease can be described by the Infection Fatality Ratio:

And here's you again describing this IFR as goobdlegook.

From that I can only assume you have no answer to the question, or you are very aware of the mathematical goobbledygook IFR is.

So, to surmise, I've provided a scientific brief (from the WHO) on the importance of IFR, as detailed above, the single most important metric for an infectious disease and you've twice labelled it goobbledygook, conjecture, "whatever you`re having yourself," and a complete failure.

That's some undeniable flat earther anti-science trolling and nothing else right there. I've provided science, You've provided uneducated opinion and denied the science. You should just read the report and learn something instead.

As always, you're issue is actually with science.

charlie14 wrote: »

Well at least that post has made one thing clear.
That you are a liar.

On you terming statistics from Eurostat as "typical trolling misinformation" I have challenged you at least twice. Post #8389 and Post#8398. Both of which you ignored.
When challenged by another poster on the same you also ignored, but now according to you that was on moral grounds.
Quite a statement from someone from their own self appointed lofty perch on the moral high ground who is a supporter of an immoral attempt of acquired herd immunity.

I have also challenged you on numerous occasions as to why you persistently posted an altered copy and paste partial post of mine which you also consistently ignored.
You also made the claim that I did not understand the difference between infection fatality rate and case fatality rate. Again when challenged on numerous occasions you did not wish to discuss the subject while at the same time continuing to publishing the same allegation.

Throw in your allegations of me being alt-right anti science and not only are you a liar, you are also a hypocrite and fair to say the most disingenuous poster in all my time here I have had engage with me.

Please quote these posts and I'll deal with them.

I'm allowed to put posters on Ignore. One mod recently did so to you.

You still misrepresented data.

Although, on that issue, I think the problem is that you don't know the difference between houses and people.

sheepysheep wrote: »

On the subject of housing figures. You never actually challenged me on that accusation, made months ago.

Another poster Greyday did. I ignored him because Of his reply regarding the deaths of children caused by the UK government cutting foreign aid.

Why? Possibly because you look after your own first and not locking down is a death sentence to the old and vulnerable, there are over 50K dead in the UK from the virus and you would like multiples of that to keep people alive in other Countries where their life expectancy is shocking and their lives in general are full of suffering

His attitude that children should be left to starve because their life expectancy is shocking and their lives in general are full of suffering was simply disgusting, and so I ignored his challenge.

It says everything about you that you didn't even try and defend yourself and hid behind that type of poster.

I stand over everything I said. I presented it as an example of your misinformation.

1.8 of 10.3 million Swedish citizens live alone. A rate of 17%. This 1.8 million, or 17% live in 1.8 million of the 4.7 million housing stock. A rate of 38%. By way of contrast, approximately 8-10% of Irish people live alone. So, around 83% of Swedish people live in family clusters as compared to around 90% in Ireland.

You simply misrepresent the Eurostat Data on housing stock (50% single occupancy) to make it appear that 50% of Swedish people live alone (true rate, around 17%, depending on website stats) giving them some incredible advantage in the fight against transmission where as the true rate, depending on different site statistics is around 17%.

Glad to be able to clear that all up.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/524909/sweden-number-of-single-person-households/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20households%20in,amounted%20to%20around%201.8%20million.

Well at least that post has made one thing clear.
That you are a liar.

On you terming statistics from Eurostat as "typical trolling misinformation" I have challenged you at least twice. Post #8389 and Post#8398. Both of which you ignored.
When challenged by another poster on the same you also ignored, but now according to you that was on moral grounds.
Quite a statement from someone from their own self appointed lofty perch on the moral high ground who is a supporter of an immoral attempt of acquired herd immunity.

I have also challenged you on numerous occasions as to why you persistently posted an altered copy and paste partial post of mine which you also consistently ignored.
You also made the claim that I did not understand the difference between infection fatality rate and case fatality rate. Again when challenged on numerous occasions you did not wish to discuss the subject while at the same time continuing to publishing the same allegation.

Throw in your allegations of me being alt-right anti science and not only are you a liar, you are also a hypocrite and fair to say the most disingenuous poster in all my time here I have had engage with me.

sheepysheep wrote: »

You keep answering questions that you're not asked. The sign of someone losing an argument.

You have consistently maintained that Sweden could only be compared to Norway Finland and Denmark. The only poster still maintaining that stance is you.

This OECD report which you ignored clearly shows that a EU27 comparison is the norm. Regional comparisons are only of secondary interest, if any.

No one has ever denied that Sweden has the highest covid deaths amongst, Norway Denmark and Finland.

Immorality is a judgement in the eye of the beholder. You're lack of empathy for starving children I think is a better reflection of you're proclaimed concern for humanity.

Feel free to ignore this excellent report that clearly shows over 20 EU27wide comparisons on covid. I know that science like this makes you uncomfortable.

I'd say you were smirking pretty hard the day you posted your lies that there was a Vaccine for Malaria and that it was a disease almost on the verge of eradication.

https://www.keepeek.com//Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-europe-2020_85e4b6a1-en#page40

More a case of making points that you are attempting to avoid than answering questions I have not been asked.

A complete lie. Quite a number of posters here have also made the point that comparing the Nordic countries is a more equitable comparison than running willy nilly around the world doing so.
A report from The Economist you posted is in agreement also and clearly gave the reasons why it believed so.

So now an O.E.C.D report covering a few months of this pandemic is the norm, yet according to you Eurostat statistics are "classic trolling misinformation.
You didn`t seem to have a problem with The Economist report. Not that is until it was pointed out to you that it`s finding on Sweden were the opposite of what you believed it said.

When it comes to science (and now immorality) you are a complete hypocrite.

You have backed a strategy of acquired herd immunity where even the architect of the strategy was finally forced to admit it was immoral. Yet for you it`s the Nuremberg trials defense of being in the eye of the beholder. You have also backed the same strategy on face masks where all the science from Sweden`s own Karolinska Institute and The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences say otherwise.
The rest of your post is just your by now oh so familiar blatant attempts at distracting from the findings of a report you yourself published and your anti science views.