Current Events > Sweden is laughing at everybody

(+) Yeah! (+)

All they're doing is practicing social distancing, but everything is open.

They have less a small amount of deaths, but are building herd immunity gradually while still tending to the infected.

I have heard they're actually doing well although the death count is high. If this is all accurate why aren't more countries following? Can't trust their own people to be sensible and social distance like Sweden can?

Uh, Sweden is having large death tolls lately. 50+ a day.


---

burns112233 posted...

building herd immunity

ugh
---

So Swedes letting nature run its course was actually the right move huh?

---

AFrench2 posted...

Uh, Sweden is having large death tolls lately. 50+ a day.

U.S. is under lockdown and has 1,000 deaths a day.

burns112233 posted...

U.S. is under lockdown and has 1,000 deaths a day.

What is the population of the US?

---

AFrench2 posted...

What is the population of the US?

What's the population of Italy compared to the U.S.?

https://twitter.com/mickimoj/status/1247200071436902400

---

Deaths per million.

Spain: 285
Italy: 273
France: 137
Iran: 45
Sweden: 47
USA: 33
Denmark: 32
Germany: 22
Iceland: 18
Norway: 14
Finland: 5
Latvia: 0.5

---

Jswift254 posted...

https://twitter.com/mickimoj/status/1247200071436902400

Comments on Twitter bring up some interesting points on this one.

burns112233 posted...

What's the population of Italy compared to the U.S.?

...what?

Shut up, jeez.

---

AFrench2 posted...

...what?

Shut up, jeez.

Nice response.

burns112233 posted...

U.S. is under lockdown and has 1,000 deaths a day.

To be fair, that isn't due to the lockdown itself.
NZ is on lockdown and has 1 death so far in total.

---

The problem is that Stockholm, Swedens capital, got no idea how to do social distancing.
Got more cases and deaths than the rest of the country? Lets travel North for half the country , gather in groups at mountains and do some skiing!
The PM have a speech on the telly about how we must keep distance and use some common sense? Stockholm bus company decides to cut down on how many buses they are going to use, overfilling the ones that are still running!
Politicals tells us to work from home? Travels many miles to Stockholm just to be on the telly daily!

---

burns112233 posted...

herd immunity

Based on your description, doesnt mean what you think it means.

---

Didn't they just recently realize they ****ed up and are starting to implement stricter measures 3 weeks behind everyone else?

---

Stockholm region should be put on lockdown.

---

Traventiladunken stumk. World klemmolinnitink. 4eva. %%%%%

Sasquatchimo posted...

Didn't they just recently realize they ****ed up and are starting to implement stricter measures 3 weeks behind everyone else?

Literally yes:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepares-to-tighten-coronavirus-measures-as-death-toll-climbs

---

Stalolin posted...

Can't trust their own people to be sensible and social distance like Sweden can?

No we cant. Americans are far too dumb and arrogant .

---

No one is laughing, but the mentally ill. We be ontoppadisssss, muh dawg.

Sweden is not fine. Sweden is in deep shit right now.

---

Sweden is in roughly the same situation as the rest of the world. They're not explicitly trying to build herd immunity, and everything isn't open.

Comparing death numbers per capita isn't really helpful as there's no reason why a country's total population should somehow have an effect on the spread or mortality rate of the virus.

---

scar the 1 posted...

Comparing death numbers per capita isn't really helpful as there's no reason why a country's total population should somehow have an effect on the spread or mortality rate of the virus.

WTF? This is hugely helpful and there are numerous reasons why total population would have an effect on the spread or mortality rate of the virus based on obvious things like geography and demographics, but also the things that country is doing in response to the virus.

It's helpful if you're doing comparisons and the rate at which those deaths occurred from the onset. It just requires a lot of statistical data and competent people to put it into a method of understanding that is helpful. For ex: just knowing 100 people died in one country and 100 people died in another wouldn't mean anything without each country's total population. You also need other info, like when the first reported case/deaths occurred, time passed to reach those number of deaths, and additional confirmed cases. Then the total population helps to paint a picture on the spread and impact it is having relative to another countries total population, and then you look at specifics of what is different, actions being taken, and why one country may have differences.

If a country has very few deaths per capita, and it continues for a long period of time without an outbreak, it would indicate that country is doing something differently than other countries with similar populations and/or worse per capita outcomes that could potentially be adapted by other places.

---

Comparing death and infection numbers is kinda pointless. It's easy for governments to fake them (blaming on flu, pneumonia, immunodeficiency or whatever hundreds other similar things), it's easy for governments not to notice them. Covid is very invisible, until you realize something is going way out of control in your hospitals.

If you think I'm wrong, take a look at what has been happening in US. Covid is everywhere. The difference is the delay between countries, because it can take like 4 weeks before people are dying.

---

This entirely ignores the main problem with this epidemic, which is the strain it puts on the health service. Sweden's health service is not at all like Americas, and not even like the UKs. They can cope with this better than we can.


---

pinky0926 posted...

This entirely ignores the main problem with this epidemic, which is the strain it puts on the health service. Sweden's health service is not at all like Americas, and not even like the UKs. They can cope with this better than we can.

they're melting down due to a lack facilities, personnel and equipment, same as (mostly) everyone else

Conker posted...

WTF? This is hugely helpful and there are numerous reasons why total population would have an effect on the spread or mortality rate of the virus based on obvious things like geography and demographics, but also the things that country is doing in response to the virus.

It's helpful if you're doing comparisons and the rate at which those deaths occurred from the onset. It just requires a lot of statistical data and competent people to put it into a method of understanding that is helpful. For ex: just knowing 100 people died in one country and 100 people died in another wouldn't mean anything without each country's total population. You also need other info, like when the first reported case/deaths occurred, time passed to reach those number of deaths, and additional confirmed cases. Then the total population helps to paint a picture on the spread and impact it is having relative to another countries total population, and then you look at specifics of what is different, actions being taken, and why one country may have differences.

If a country has very few deaths per capita, and it continues for a long period of time without an outbreak, it would indicate that country is doing something differently than other countries with similar populations and/or worse per capita outcomes that could potentially be adapted by other places.

Before typing all this up, did you have a look at plots with, say, reproduction rates or mortality rates vs population size? Like, are you pulling this all out of your ass with or without knowing that there's no correlation? If a virus hits a community, the way it will spread is completely unrelated to the total population of the country that the community is in.

Yes, geography (population density) and demographics are hugely important factors. Population size is not. So if you correct results for population size, you get misleading figures.

pinky0926 posted...

This entirely ignores the main problem with this epidemic, which is the strain it puts on the health service. Sweden's health service is not at all like Americas, and not even like the UKs. They can cope with this better than we can.

Let's hope. We're facing some pretty rough challenges ourselves, although of course it's not on the scale of the US clusterfuck.

---

Conker posted...

WTF? This is hugely helpful and there are numerous reasons why total population would have an effect on the spread or mortality rate of the virus based on obvious things like geography and demographics, but also the things that country is doing in response to the virus.

It's helpful if you're doing comparisons and the rate at which those deaths occurred from the onset. It just requires a lot of statistical data and competent people to put it into a method of understanding that is helpful. For ex: just knowing 100 people died in one country and 100 people died in another wouldn't mean anything without each country's total population. You also need other info, like when the first reported case/deaths occurred, time passed to reach those number of deaths, and additional confirmed cases. Then the total population helps to paint a picture on the spread and impact it is having relative to another countries total population, and then you look at specifics of what is different, actions being taken, and why one country may have differences.

If a country has very few deaths per capita, and it continues for a long period of time without an outbreak, it would indicate that country is doing something differently than other countries with similar populations and/or worse per capita outcomes that could potentially be adapted by other places.

Population as a whole is meaningless because it doesnt take into account the localisation of either the outbreak or the means to deal with it.

Oh and no, Sweden isn't laughing at everybody

---

Oh. Look at that, Lfven took the opportunity to become Supreme Chancellor Palpatine

---

Sweden's policies were a disaster. They're doing a massive U-turn now.,

Sweden has basically turned crazy in recent years. I feel like they got a reputation as being some forward-thinking and clever, progressive nation, ahead of the curve for decades. However every other developed country in the world got to the same place so Sweden is trying to outdo them again by putting in place eccentric policies like this or some crazy "progressive" policies, all ending in horrible disaster. Just stop Sweden.

---

If Sweden doesn't get with the program they'll be the next New York or Italy...the thing spreads like fucking wildfire

---

Whenever I picture Sweden laughing at me, all I can see is slamming hot blonde girls in bikinis standing and giggling in the snow.

Norway - 89 deaths
Sweden - 591 deaths

What other information do we need?

---

Ooooooranges posted...

Norway - 89 deaths
Sweden - 591 deaths

What other information do we need?

Norways population is almost half of Swedens though. They still have fewer deaths but lets not try to be insincere with numbers.

---

SuperInfinity46 posted...

Sweden's policies were a disaster. They're doing a massive U-turn now.,

Not really..

---

@scar_the_1
Except total population is helpful for determining all of those other things. As I said, its not the only thing that matters, you need additional data to put it in context that is understandable and shows relevant info, but without the total population of an area the info is just as useless.

You had to derp about population density, which would not be known without the total population.

knutjob posted...

Population as a whole is meaningless because it doesnt take into account the localisation of either the outbreak or the means to deal with it.

Youre not actually connecting how that makes population as a whole meaningless. All youre saying is, A is meaningless because B. Not how or why youre coming to that conclusion, and those things dont correlate.

Now tell me how total population is meaningless because it doesnt take into account the means to deal with the outbreak. Even before you attempt to answer, Ill offer one example already proving you wrong: if you dont know how many people are in the total population, you dont know how many people to consider taking measures such as distancing, stay-at-home, or complete isolation. So to help contain it, youd either have to go blind and say everyone stay home, or attempt to calculate some semblance of normalcy based on how many people could be out and about without spreading it too much and causing the healthcare system to be overrun.

It doesnt inherently solve the problem by just knowing total population, but that isnt what I said or was even responding to. scar said it was not helpful to compare per capita deaths or total pop when they dont solve a problem, but they certainly help give info to solve the problem.

---

Conker posted...

@scar_the_1
Except total population is helpful for determining all of those other things. As I said, its not the only thing that matters, you need additional data to put it in context that is understandable and shows relevant info, but without the total population of an area the info is just as useless.

You had to derp about population density, which would not be known without the total population.

Youre not actually connecting how that makes population as a whole meaningless. All youre saying is, A is meaningless because B. Not how or why youre coming to that conclusion, and those things dont correlate.

Now tell me how total population is meaningless because it doesnt take into account the means to deal with the outbreak. Even before you attempt to answer, Ill offer one example already proving you wrong: if you dont know how many people are in the total population, you dont know how many people to consider taking measures such as distancing, stay-at-home, or complete isolation. So to help contain it, youd either have to go blind and say everyone stay home, or attempt to calculate some semblance of normalcy based on how many people could be out and about without spreading it too much and causing the healthcare system to be overrun.

It doesnt inherently solve the problem by just knowing total population, but that isnt what I said or was even responding to. scar said it was not helpful to compare per capita deaths or total pop when they dont solve a problem, but they certainly help give info to solve the problem.

I think you misunderstood my point on means that it's not really worth arguing further. My point was that resources for tackling an outbreak are rarely distributed evenly throughout a country. For example if Italy's outbreak had been in the south rather than the north it would likely have run an entirely different course for a variety or different reasons and the strategy for tackling would need to be vastly different even though obviously in both scenarios Italy's population is entirely the same.

My motivation for downplaying total population is seeing people constantly downplay America's problem because deaths per capita for example while completely ignoring that the bulk of the outbreak is going on within a population of 20m or so at a much faster rate than anywhere else with an equivalent population. Within medium to large countries it is much more useful to look at the spread not as a single outbreak in a single population but rather as lots of different spreads at varying stages within different localisations

Conker posted...

Except total population is helpful for determining all of those other things. As I said, its not the only thing that matters, you need additional data to put it in context that is understandable and shows relevant info, but without the total population of an area the info is just as useless.

You had to derp about population density, which would not be known without the total population.

Total population is indeed a parameter that helps determine things like density and demographics. That doesn't change my point, which is that comparing per capita deaths between countries isn't helpful. In fact I'll go one step further and say that it's misleading. There's no correlation between spread or death rates and population size, so adjusting for it literally obfuscates the data. That doesn't mean that the parameter "population size" should never be looked at in any sort of analysis.

---

scar the 1 posted...

Total population is indeed a parameter that helps determine things like density and demographics. That doesn't change my point, which is that comparing per capita deaths between countries isn't helpful. In fact I'll go one step further and say that it's misleading. There's no correlation between spread or death rates and population size, so adjusting for it literally obfuscates the data. That doesn't mean that the parameter "population size" should never be looked at in any sort of analysis.

I think its more that you have been given unhelpful info from people that do have relevant and useful info, not that per capita death isnt actually helpful. Like I originally said, if you take the data and put it into a useful tool to help understand what impacted that based on the population of these different countries, it becomes helpful. Recognizing that info is the key here, not that it simply isnt helpful. I think your bigger problem is that you cant see it and theres nobody to spoonfeed it to you, so youre shortsighted in datas usefulness. Thats not meant as an insult but simply that without a broader perspective and additional info from the people that can obtain more, that data appears unhelpful to you because you cant come to a specific conclusion that justifies it to yourself.

I guarantee there are helpful and very important details about comparing per capita deaths is significant. Hell, it could be something obvious and simple we all overlook or it could be a single genetic detail of who dies. Oftentimes the conclusion is made before the true cause is known and understood so potentially very useful data is ignored and goes by the wayside.

---

Trump really loves to talk about Sweden.

---

Conker posted...

I think its more that you have been given unhelpful info from people that do have relevant and useful info, not that per capita death isnt actually helpful. Like I originally said, if you take the data and put it into a useful tool to help understand what impacted that based on the population of these different countries, it becomes helpful. Recognizing that info is the key here, not that it simply isnt helpful. I think your bigger problem is that you cant see it and theres nobody to spoonfeed it to you, so youre shortsighted in datas usefulness. Thats not meant as an insult but simply that without a broader perspective and additional info from the people that can obtain more, that data appears unhelpful to you because you cant come to a specific conclusion that justifies it to yourself.

I guarantee there are helpful and very important details about comparing per capita deaths is significant. Hell, it could be something obvious and simple we all overlook or it could be a single genetic detail of who dies. Oftentimes the conclusion is made before the true cause is known and understood so potentially very useful data is ignored and goes by the wayside.

Total population of a country has no correlation with how quickly a virus is spreading. In fact, you don't even need it to calculate local population density, which is an important parameter. I'm not saying to ignore total country population in every analysis. I'm saying that correcting for population when you compare spread and death rates is misleading.

Case in point: A big reason why Norway has fewer deaths than Sweden is because they have so far managed to keep the contagion away from places live elderly homes, where a lot of vulnerable people are gathered. If you adjust the numbers for country population, you obfuscate that difference between Sweden and Norway, because suddenly one explanation for Sweden's larger amount of deaths is its total population.

---

scar the 1 posted...

Total population of a country has no correlation with how quickly a virus is spreading. In fact, you don't even need it to calculate local population density, which is an important parameter. I'm not saying to ignore total country population in every analysis. I'm saying that correcting for population when you compare spread and death rates is misleading.

Case in point: A big reason why Norway has fewer deaths than Sweden is because they have so far managed to keep the contagion away from places live elderly homes, where a lot of vulnerable people are gathered. If you adjust the numbers for country population, you obfuscate that difference between Sweden and Norway, because suddenly one explanation for Sweden's larger amount of deaths is its total population.

You now realize the things you keep saying is by using total population and per capita death to come to these conclusions. Which means it is/was helpful.

Without having that info and if it wasnt being helpful, you wouldnt keep saying things about different countries based on that info. Youve come to these conclusions based on it being helpful and useful info. Without the data, how would you make these judgements in the first place?

Nowhere did I say total population causes the virus to spread more based on that alone in a direct way. Youve said knowing the per capita deaths isnt helpful, but it absolutely is for understanding and decision making going forward. It is helpful in knowing how it is effecting different populations of countries and making conclusions as to why that is (as youve continued doing), which in turn absolutely changes approaches these countries have taken, which indirectly does change how the virus spreads among the population based on how many people there are in the country.

If there is a population of 10 million in one country but its rural and completely spread out, and there is a country of 10m but all in one dense urban city, if the urban population has lower per capita deaths it is helpful to know and useful info. What theyre doing different and looking at what measures were taken, if they can be replicated, and what each varying country can do based on their population (again, total would matter here). It doesnt mean the virus simply spread more due to total population. I dont know why youre so fixated on that when Ive never said that.

---

I've been making the point from the start that when comparing spread of virus and death rates, adjusting for population size isn't just unhelpful, it's outright misleading. You keep skipping that, so I'll leave you be. You don't seem to be arguing in good faith.

If you really don't understand what I'm saying then feel free to contact me by PM.

---

they use trash to fuel. By god lets give them our trash.

---

scar the 1 posted...

I've been making the point from the start that when comparing spread of virus and death rates, adjusting for population size isn't just unhelpful, it's outright misleading. You keep skipping that, so I'll leave you be. You don't seem to be arguing in good faith.

If you really don't understand what I'm saying then feel free to contact me by PM.

I absolutely get what youre saying, its just wrong to suggest its unhelpful. You believe its just a stat to compare for numbers sake and it cant change the ultimate spread of the virus. When in fact it changes the approaches countries take or redirect after comparing to what others are doing, even if that info isnt 100% directly comparable, it offers perspective to take account of further actions.

---

It must be nice living there.