Your analysis makes perfect sense, but rest assured, Covidians will continue to vocalize “yeah, but what about Sweden?” The fact that Sweden is one of the healthiest nations on earth means nothing to them, nor would your explanation, because they only care about their narrative. For the rest of the sane folks out there, this post is important and I’ll be sharing it to all I know!
Yes, I agree, the article makes sense. However, like you said - don't pick on Sweden.
The UK had about 30 different combinations of restrictions over the two years and they varied them up and down and to varying degrees about 5-10 times. Approaching a decent sample size. On only one occasion did the new or renewed restriction match with a fall in covid deaths in anything other than an obvious mismatch, or nothing. That was arguable, and it was April 2020. Around the world, in the Northern hemisphere, the virus followed the same ups and downs regardless of the level or lack of restrictions. We have Peru vs Brazil to equate to UK vs Sweden and other examples. The variations in restrictions were so plentiful as to be a very good sample size. And there as stated many examples when restrictions were eased and covid deaths subsequently eased exponentially for sometimes up to 8 weeks.
The health of a nation is indeed a relevant issue. Nonetheless, clearly the argument implied here is that health is more effective than lockdown (leaving aside lockdowns hurting health within months). So lockdown is an unknown in comparing Sweden, but certainly not such a biggie as to override health , whereas health is a biggie, let's say. The right experiment would be to keep Sweden healthy and lock them down next time. It's a specific matter.
Brazil resisted a lot of lockdowns. Based on uk population deaths, Brazil should have had 580,000 deaths on a tally done early this year, but it had 630,000. I speculated that that was their poverty and health that make that difference. Pure speculation. But evidence yet again that restrictions or lack of produce no clear pattern or effect.
But as far as talking about the good health being a probable factor in Sweden and that therefore it can't be used (apart from to show that lockdowns can't be very dramatic as predicted) as evidence that lockdowns have no effect, no, in itself it can't. But whether you include Sweden in the wider data or not, the wider data (and specific within countries) produces no significant association.
Your analysis makes perfect sense, but rest assured, Covidians will continue to vocalize “yeah, but what about Sweden?” The fact that Sweden is one of the healthiest nations on earth means nothing to them, nor would your explanation, because they only care about their narrative. For the rest of the sane folks out there, this post is important and I’ll be sharing it to all I know!
Yes, I agree, the article makes sense. However, like you said - don't pick on Sweden.
The UK had about 30 different combinations of restrictions over the two years and they varied them up and down and to varying degrees about 5-10 times. Approaching a decent sample size. On only one occasion did the new or renewed restriction match with a fall in covid deaths in anything other than an obvious mismatch, or nothing. That was arguable, and it was April 2020. Around the world, in the Northern hemisphere, the virus followed the same ups and downs regardless of the level or lack of restrictions. We have Peru vs Brazil to equate to UK vs Sweden and other examples. The variations in restrictions were so plentiful as to be a very good sample size. And there as stated many examples when restrictions were eased and covid deaths subsequently eased exponentially for sometimes up to 8 weeks.
The health of a nation is indeed a relevant issue. Nonetheless, clearly the argument implied here is that health is more effective than lockdown (leaving aside lockdowns hurting health within months). So lockdown is an unknown in comparing Sweden, but certainly not such a biggie as to override health , whereas health is a biggie, let's say. The right experiment would be to keep Sweden healthy and lock them down next time. It's a specific matter.
Brazil resisted a lot of lockdowns. Based on uk population deaths, Brazil should have had 580,000 deaths on a tally done early this year, but it had 630,000. I speculated that that was their poverty and health that make that difference. Pure speculation. But evidence yet again that restrictions or lack of produce no clear pattern or effect.
But as far as talking about the good health being a probable factor in Sweden and that therefore it can't be used (apart from to show that lockdowns can't be very dramatic as predicted) as evidence that lockdowns have no effect, no, in itself it can't. But whether you include Sweden in the wider data or not, the wider data (and specific within countries) produces no significant association.
Well said!