A reader pointed me to a Times of Israel article (linked below) which, to some, appears to refute the favorable results of Sweden’s non-lockdown approach. I am thankful to the reader for the tip because the article helps illustrate some of the points made in earlier posts on quarantine as well as last week’s post. Specifically, the article illustrates the power of what we used to call “peer pressure” and, also, the rush to create amnesia about the projections which convinced most governments to shut down.
In the second of my series of posts on “The Bible and Quarantine” (Part 2) I noted how Sweden’s approach has been opposed by every major country in the West, not to say the world. Even President Trump, not known for jumping on bandwagons, leapt onto this one with a whoop and a holler, denouncing Sweden’s non-lockdown (link below).
“Sweden has been criticized, attacked, mocked, and despised…. Two weeks ago a group of 22 ‘scientists’ attacked the officials of Sweden’s department of health, demanding the Swedish government discard the directives of that department and impose the measures all the other countries have imposed. They implied that the Swedish population had been willfully deluded by ignorant authorities and by an epidemiologist who has been seduced by his sudden fame….”
“A French journalist may have let the cat out of the bag when, while interviewing a Swedish epidemiologist, he said, ‘…it’s almost as if we want Sweden to fail because then we’d know the fools are they and not us.”
So, now when Professor Lockdown himself expresses admiration for Sweden’s approach (Here), well, we must not have that. So The Times of Israel publishes an article titled, “Sweden Admits Virus Response Could Have Been Better, Though Not Quite Sure How.”
Notice the sleight of hand: “could have been better….” So I, as a reader, assume that they, after all, suffered the 80,000 to 90,000 deaths that were projected if no lockdown were imposed. But no, they have suffered “…4,468 deaths linked to COVID-19….”
Most of us want to be liked, even Swedish epidemiologists such as Dr. Tegnell. Assuming the aforementioned newspaper quoted Dr. Tegnell correctly and in context (and I make no claims that it did), he comes across as “reconsidering his unique approach” given the “high death toll.” World pressure can be effective.
But let us take a closer look at that “high death toll.”
Per the article, “Sweden’s rate of 43.24 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants is lower than Spain’s (58.06) and Italy’s (55.39) ….” But, wait: Spain and Italy had full lockdowns. Sweden’s rate is lower, with no lockdown.
“…but [Sweden’s rate] is higher than the reported rates in the United States (32.14) and Brazil (14.29)….”
Per Wikipedia, in Brazil, only two of her 27 states locked down. And her president has been urging citizens to ignore lockdown orders. Measurements in Brazil are questionable, but 14.29 is a very low rate considering that most of her states did not lockdown and lockdowns are being ignored in the rest.
As for the USA, comparisons to overall numbers are misleading, because each of our states handled it differently. For example, South Dakota had no lockdown, for which the governor was loudly denounced. The death rate there is currently 7.34 per 100,000 inhabitants, with no lockdown, which is far lower than the USA’s overall rate.
New York, with a full lockdown has a comparable death rate of 121.40 per 100,000 inhabitants, which is almost triple that of Sweden’s. Michigan, whose population is comparable to that of Sweden, has a death rate of 56.20, which is higher than Sweden’s, despite one of the most draconian lockdowns in the country.
In sum, comparing death rates can be very misleading since one must take into account population densities and other factors, including age of the inhabitants, comorbidities, and more.
More importantly, it would appear the media assumes most of us suffer amnesia and have forgotten that the lockdowns were triggered, not by death rates, but by truly frightening projections, such as 500,000 deaths in Britain and 2.2 Million deaths in the USA. Now that such projections have been shown to be grossly wrong, instead of focusing our analyses on how we decided to shut down the earth’s economies based on almost criminally bad data, we have moved the goal posts and are now focusing on “death rates” between countries. Not to mention the minimal focus on the devastation wreaked on nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
Which brings us to the matter the Swedes themselves admit they could have done better: addressing the failure “…to protect the country’s elderly and nursing home residents.”
That is a major fault in many places in the world. By some estimates, over half of USA deaths “linked to COVID-19” were in nursing homes or assisted living facilities (Here). This is an outrage. But this has nothing to do with the draconian lockdowns imposed on us. New York Governor Cuomo had been ordering nursing homes to accepts COVID patients. Don’t hold your breath for The Times of Israel, to run stories on that.
One more citation from the post on quarantine: “The English models (to which most other countries adhered) anticipated that [in Sweden] there’d be 8 Thousand to 9 Thousand patients requiring intensive care. The actual numbers are a fraction of that: 530. The hospitals are not overwhelmed.” So much for “flattening the curve.”
The fact is that no leading country in the world would have shut down its entire economy on the basis of 4,468 projected deaths. Instead, they would have focused their efforts on reducing those deaths using other means, including taking special care of the elderly, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities.
Have we been had?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/sweden-admits-virus-response-could-have-been-better
https://www.rt.com/usa/489951-cuomo-nursing-homes-deaths-mandate/