Is there something about this statement I made in post # 30 that you do not understand?

This doesn't prevent me from considering that the whole worldwide lockdown was an error since 80% or more of deaths are from nursing homes and old people with pre existing health problems. A policy of just isolating seniors and strict rules, PPE for all nursing home staff etc would have saved more lives and allowed younger people to keep working with some precautions and not crash the economy.

I wish people would read entire threads before commenting so they won't waste their time arguing against straw men that don't exist.

Hindsight is always 20/20. We still don't know nearly enough about this virus but we know a whole lot more than we did when the various types of lockdowns began. The longer people, especially vulnerable people, self-isolate, the better the chance that when/if they eventually DO get infected, enough will be known to allow for much more effective treatment. Seems worth the wait and inconvenience to me.

Again?
 

The person I responded to had measured Sweden (no lockdown) against their immediate neighbors that did lockdown and fared much better. Compare like to like. Comparing Sweden to the USA is ,IMHO, like comparing NYC to some tiny town in the mid-west.

I was appropriately responding to someone else's comment. Secondly, your comparison is absurd, but you have every right to make it. Thirdly, here are the numbers you suggest regarding the effect of no lockdown in Sweden.
Death rate per 1 million in population:
Sweden - 3213
Denmark - 1939
Norway - 1554
Finland - 1188

Well . . . . .
 

All good and well for 70 days. HOWEVER! There are many more days to come.
"It ain't over till the portly lady warbles.

Ummm
 

Don't know if you are "old" (over 55) or vulnerable, but if I were U, I'd volunteer to wait and accept any inconvenience to me.

NO, you are not comparing like to like. Just because countries are neighbors does not mean they were seeded with the same amount of virus carriers. The coronavirus spread globally by travelers, and each country does not get an equal dose.

For instance, the five worst hit in terms of deaths per million European countries are Spain, Italy, France, UK, and Belgium are also some of the most visited countries in the world, except for Belgium, not sure why they got hit so hard. So they got seeded with lots of virus carrying travelers.

Sweden gets 50% more visitors than Norway and 200% more visitors than Finland, so it's obvious they got more travelers with virus than those countries that so many people like to use to "debunk" Sweden's strategy. And comparing Sweden to countries halfway around the world like South Korea and New Zealand is insane, the virus mutated as it traveled and the most contagious strain developed in Europe, which then seeded New York City and then the rest of the USA.

So if you want to compare "similar countries" in Europe to Sweden, you might pick Belgium and Ireland, which have similar travel levels to Sweden. Belgium has a little more, Ireland a little less.

Belgium 794 deaths per million
Sweden 388 deaths per million
Ireland 322 deaths per million

Also, if we do have a second wave, Sweden will have reached herd immunity while other countries in Europe that locked down will see their deaths go up. The only thing that stops a virus is herd immunity or a effective vaccine.

Originally Posted by GoodLife
"Yes, but Sweden did not lockdown, did not overwhelm their hospitals, does not have vaccine and yet they show a similar rise and fall in deaths,"

I did a quick analysis myself the other day because I had been coming across reports that social distancing may not be effective. So I looked at death rates in Sweden, which hasn't locked down, and compared them with Sweden's Scandinavian neighbors. I concluded that social distancing may indeed be worthwhile. If this analysis is flawed, I'm all ears.

Population / Number of Covid deaths / Deaths per capita

Norway - 5.32M / 235 / .000044

Sweden - 9.96M / 3871/ .00039

Finland - 5.52M / 306/ .000055

Denmark - 5.62M / 561/ .00001

Sir? Welcome back! I know you're confused, but you've been asleep for 2 months and things have changed. (Somebody must have left the tv on an 'alternate facts' channel all that time and you've been dreaming...) :1rotfl:

see post #47

...

Thanks GoodLife. I'm sure your analysis has merit regarding travel. I saw it after I posted my Scandinavian death rates.

I remember from doing regressions in statistics class that you can never explain cause by one variable only (social distancing in this case). After I did my calculations, I wondered what other variables might be at play.

Travel is certainly one of them. There are probably others, e.g., older population, a population with more co-morbidity, mass transport, population density, etc.

Yes 100s of variables at play, it's why simple calculations of statistics comparing countries don't tell the whole story.

I stand chastained and rebuked.
 

I apologize. Some where we have ended up at cross purposes.
My original post was in regard to the comparing Sweden against US covid numbers as a justification for "no lockdown". I was in support of the person comparing Sweden with its neighbors as being more appropriate and meaningful than than a comparison between Sweden and the US. The numbers shown above in your quote, I believe, show that the "lockdown" was successful in reducing the number of potential fatalities significantly.
I stand by my opinion of comparing "like with like" in order to get a more realistic picture of current covid conditions. And, I sincerely thank you for pointing out to me that I don't always make myself clear.
Hopefully I'll do better next time.

Food for thought?
 

Always willing to learn.
I accept the comparing of Belgium, Sweden, Ireland as reasonable based on the points you made. In the middle of your post, remarking on high travelled European countries, you inserted the statement "don't know why they got hit so hard" in regard to Belgium. I don't think anyone does, yet. In the comparing the death rates, you said," Belgium a little more". Using the numbers you provided it was more than double. Personally I consider that substantial. More research required to find the reason. And Ireland a little less. Again, more research required to discover contributing and mitigating factors.
Since we are all still in the learning phase, please forgive my poor communication skills. I, like most, are trying to learn while we do the best we can to protect ourselves and loved ones.

In my humble opinion, your communication skills are exemplary!

I hate to put a damper on all those that know so much about curves and stat. But we are in an area that has older people who should just think about their health first and talk to their doctor. You only can die once.