It's not about percent, its about actual numbers of over 80s. Sweden hasn't done well, but I suppose the point is it hasn't collapsed with its approach, certainly not anyway near the numbers predicted.
When we say sub 80 year old.we need to be clear of the parameters, are we talking teenagers or knocking on 80.
This. I'm not saying Sweden had it right or wrong, but you can't compare countries just because they're geographically close to each other.
If Sweden's no-lockdown policy has been a total failure and is to blame for their current 2nd-wave situation, what flattened the curve from the first wave? How did their daily deaths drop so low for several months that you could count them on one hand? Where did the virus go? With no masks worn, no pubs or restaurants closed, all schools remaining open throughout the pandemic, why did this supposed incredibly contagious virus not rampage through the country at a rate of knots with deaths rising exponentially?
1.5 million schoolkids going to school every day, mingling with other children, and then going home to spend hours indoors with their families, before going back to school the next day.
Stockholm has a population density near that of London, how did Covid not spread like wildfire throughout the city?
I asked these questions a while back (before the 2nd wave took hold) and the only answer offered was that it's because the Swede's are more sensible than the Brits (and most of Europe presumably) and adhered to social distancing better. Well I guess that theory is now not applicable - unless those very same Swedes suddenly became massively irresponsible and reckless after the summer
Regarding comparing Sweden with it's geographical neighbours - it does make logical sense of course, but this virus has shown that it affects no two countries are the same and at the end of the day Norway and Finland have among the lowest Covid death rates in Europe (for whatever reason, they clearly avoided the early infiltration of the virus in Nov/Dec/Jan so have never really had a problem with it from day one - and it can't just be 'because they locked down', as so did almost every other country in Europe which are all now struggling with the 2nd wave big time), so the stats for nearly every country in this continent would look bad when compared to them, so it's a perhaps a bit unfair (and convenient to prove a point). At the end of the day, we don't compare the stats of other countries solely to their direct neighbours (imagine if we only ever compared England's stats to those of Wales and Scotland) so why do it for Sweden (apart from the obvious answer that it helps support the theory that Sweden has failed)?
Coronavirus: Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf says coronavirus approach 'has failed' Coronavirus: Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf says coronavirus approach 'has failed'
Great post - got most of the points I wanted to make in here in a very coherent way.If Sweden's no-lockdown policy has been a total failure and is to blame for their current 2nd-wave situation, what flattened the curve from the first wave? How did their daily deaths drop so low for several months that you could count them on one hand? Where did the virus go? With no masks worn, no pubs or restaurants closed, all schools remaining open throughout the pandemic, why did this supposed incredibly contagious virus not rampage through the country at a rate of knots with deaths rising exponentially?
1.5 million schoolkids going to school every day, mingling with other children, and then going home to spend hours indoors with their families, before going back to school the next day.
Stockholm has a population density near that of London, how did Covid not spread like wildfire throughout the city?
I asked these questions a while back (before the 2nd wave took hold) and the only answer offered was that it's because the Swede's are more sensible than the Brits (and most of Europe presumably) and adhered to social distancing better. Well I guess that theory is now not applicable - unless those very same Swedes suddenly became massively irresponsible and reckless after the summer
Regarding comparing Sweden with it's geographical neighbours - it does make logical sense of course, but this virus has shown that it affects no two countries are the same and at the end of the day Norway and Finland have among the lowest Covid death rates in Europe (for whatever reason, they clearly avoided the early infiltration of the virus in Nov/Dec/Jan so have never really had a problem with it from day one - and it can't just be 'because they locked down', as so did almost every other country in Europe which are all now struggling with the 2nd wave big time), so the stats for nearly every country in this continent would look bad when compared to them, so it's a perhaps a bit unfair (and convenient to prove a point). At the end of the day, we don't compare the stats of other countries solely to their direct neighbours (imagine if we only ever compared England's stats to those of Wales and Scotland) so why do it for Sweden (apart from the obvious answer that it helps support the theory that Sweden has failed)?
No.
Compare Sweden to its neighbours and see how badly it failed, or hang on the word of a right wing libertarian think tank whilst deluding yourself that you know what you’re talking about
The lockdown zealots, the condemners, will be all over you for that
Take all deaths out of it and it’s a different story
What a pointless argumentTake all deaths out of it and it’s a different story
“If you exclude deaths then you get no deaths”
