KaareV wrote:
SWEDEN TODAY
117 new deaths and 17629 infected since Friday. Compared to one week ago 94 - 17725. It doesn't seem all that bad. Infections at the same level. So may be they have flattened the infection curve. Promising.
Highest 7 day moving deaths at Friday was 32 (Nov 18). Today Nov18 is 35. Highest 7 day moving average today 36 (Nov 20). Because the reporting system fills up backwards. As far back as Nov 11 - 2 more deaths, from 25 to 27.
Haha. Sorry Kåre.
(But what can I do?)
Look.
You seem in many ways like a decent enough guy, but are you THAT stupid or just THAT desperate to win an argument on an internet message board so you actually thought you'd get away with a very tactical cut and paste stunt like that?
Really? Haha.. Ok..
The following bold part is what I actually said in that post, directly after cautioning on deducing trends from the swedish numbers:
I am even more comfortable than before in projecting that they will peak below Belgium and Czechia. By some margin now even (more like 1/3 in daily per capita death toll numbers, quite possibly even better..), and yes, I totally agree that condemning Sweden's strategy is premature and probably will not hold up to scrutiny when this is all done.
So yes, I did in fact say 1/3, but any literate person with average reading comprehension not going to extreme lengths trying to win an argument on the internet would deduce from that what I actually did was: doubling down on the less than and that the latter half of the sentence exists to support the projection that the first half makes.
By the way: I very much stand by, this statement. I am as confident as I can be in that it will hold up. If anything I would be willing to bet more money on it than when given, because the data coming from Sweden supports it even more now than when given, even the 1/3rd part.
I wouldn't make a projection on 1/3 yet though. Less than half, yes, definately.
Oh..
Yes. I have no issues admitting to having picked Belgium and Czechia because they have roughly the same population as Sweden and obviously that they have been hit hard in the 2nd wave.
The first makes comparing numbers easy, the other because it is relevant as Sweden as they are the gold standard for bad..
I could just as easily have mentioned others
I can expand countries I compare and predict vs too..
What about:
(Drumroll)
My prediction is that Sweden will peak with lower daily deaths per capita in 2nd wave than all of the following:
Czechia
Belgium
Hungary
Poland
France
Sweden
Austria
England
Spain
Romania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Switzerland
In fact, I don't even think they'll reach past Portugal and dutch levels.
Not sure enough to predict it even if l judge it more likely than not though.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually bothered to check what each of those countries above have peaked at, but the assumption is that they are all higher than Netherlands and Portugal at the time this prediciton is given. This assumption could be wrong.
Is that better Kåre?
I don't know how it helps your argument if Sweden turns out to have lower deaths than all of them though?
And just 1 last little note on death estimations on Sweden..
Do you realize that when you label me an optimist you are also labelling yourself an optimist?
(And this doesnt look good, because you labelled me when you labelled Lead Foil, so now you have not only labelled me, but put yourself in the same boat as you have Lead Foil).
Surely wasn't your intention was it?
But 70-80 of let's say 200 (or do you have another peak death estimate for Belgium and Czechia. I'd wager it is above for Czechia but around that number for Belgium).
Anyways, for simplicity, let's say 200.
70-80% is 35-40% of 200 no?
Please don't take offense, just asking for a friend like, but why on earth go to the trouble of labelling me an optimist when I read swedish numbers, yet you end up guesstimating the same based on the same numbers?
Also: Good on you for realizing you've miswritten on GDP.
(We all know that the reason you did it was that you so very desperately wanted to win an argument on the internet so you couldn't help yourself from writing some stuff that even if wrong and not quite makeing sense, you hoped it would come across as impressive)
241 /aprox 3600 = ?
Read the numbers carefully Kåre.
The numbers I write above is all I have to write to prove that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in your latest attempt at saying something impressive on the norwegian GDP.
On latest numbers as given by the European Comission last week, 3rd placed Sweden comes out better (-3,4%) than 5th placed Denmark (-3,9%) and 6th Finland (-4,3%) on full year GDP (negative) growth for 2020.
Norway isn't included in those numbers as they are not a EU country, but those of us with knowledge know that it doesn't matter given Norway's special circumstances that gives them the ability to boost GDP a lot without destroying their economy.
Make no mistake, those are projections, so they could be wrong,
I know that GDP only tells a limited story on how the economy fares anyways and I also know that 4th quarter numbers could be both wacky and vary differently from country to country this year, To be honest, personally I wouldn't put too much into those numbers.
After all they are just projections of a somehwat random economic metric.
That said, have to admit, it is quite fullfilling for me to inform you that contrary to your previous statement on (I am paraphrasing as I am too lazy to look up your exact words here, so please don't shoot me if the intent is correct and the details are not): No economic forecast showing Sweden to do better than their neighbors GDP wise in 2020 isn't doing well.
Now we (well at least I) know the European Comission expect Sweden to fare just a tad better than Denmark and Finland GDP wise in 2020.
You ignored the warning last time,.
Fine.
S**t happens Kåre.
Learn from it Kåre.
Don't do it again this time.
That little equation is a bait that proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Take my word for it. Or don't.
My suggestion:
Let's just leave it shall we Kåre?
You see, as previously stated I don't actually have an agenda.
Well, if I have one it is to shed light a critical light on what people present as facts.
Correct or give context to them if you will.
I know, when I put my big glasses on and don't get caught up in an argument with you, that you and I really don't see this too differently.
Not really.
You love Norway's (and Denmark and Finland's) approach to covid 19.
Good on you. I don't mind. I just like to point out that even if those contries have handled it well, they have also not done all things great.
Far from it.
But compared to most countries, I've got no issues conceeding that Ithink they've done fine too.
And then you slaughter Sweden's approach.
This is too simplistic for me.
Based on evidence like death numbers and economic impact they are managing somewhere in between ok and fine.
Sweden is in the middle of the pack in european death numbers (or close to by the time it's over), almost top of the class in economic impact and they've done this while imposing less restrictions that take away fundamental human rights than pretty much everyone else.
Sure, they could have done better.
In the spring they should have been more cautious.
They've also failed on tracking and tracing. This summer the infection rates were so low they probably could have switched strategy to mirror the other nordic countries, but they didn't.
And you could argue other stuff.
But lets just not make our differences bigger than they are?
You and I BOTH know that official advice vs mandatory measures aren't THAT different when we are talking the Nordics anyway.
More than likely, the majority of the people will try and to what their governemt tells them to whether mandatory or voluntary.
I think it must be allowed to say that Sweden has done fine even if Norway, Denmark and Finland have lost less lives. The one doesn't exclude the other. In my opinion.