Questions and some comments for you Kåre, the questions are in italic, harder to miss that way.
Is it not true that Sweden's number vary from pretty much Italian numbers to slightly above danish numbers?
Is that not a more fair representation of the situation in Sweden, than claiming Norrland shows Sweden to be hard hit all over?
Is it not true that Värmlands number is MORE REPRESENTSTIVE for rural Sweden than Norrlands number?
(Rural läns defined as any Län with lower per km than swedish already quite rural average of 25 per km and more representative as in more rural läns are closer to Värmland's number than the Norrland number)
I have absolutely no problem with giving you that your number for Norrland is correct, I never have, but given you mentioning Norrlands low population density, lack of big cities, comparing them to Netherlands which you make sure to say are more densely populated:
Isn't it wrong to say your Norrland number is representative of how hard hit Sweden is hit, when 3 of the 5 äns in Norrland have numbers like 420, 750, 760 (using your numbers since you find numbers later than socialstyrelsen latest published report), numbers that are some 33-34% to more than 60% under the national average, without you bothering to mention it?
(the percentages are purely done in my head from a swedish death/number in my head, feel free to correct me with precise number)
Why don't you just publish death/million for all of Sweden's läns instead Kåre?
Is it because it would give a much more nuanced and less dramatic picture of the swedish situation?
Should we look up municipalities in Sweden Kåre?
I haven't checked, but I bet they show everything from above BELGIUM numbers in some densely populated areas of Stockholm with high immigration, to numbers resembling NORWAY in some REALLY RURAL municipalities...
Please, I know you love to look up numbers, prove that I am wrong!
I am guessing you won't if for no other reason that it would prove the agenda I say you have.
As per my numbers Kåre:
In FHM latest week report (as per this weekend) they referred to getting their numbers from Socialstyrelsen, and provided that link Kåre.
I clicked the link.... And took the numbers from there (as per this weekend)..
I was a bit surprised the numbers were from january 25th. I did not bother searching for later data, but rather disclosed that the number first mentioned was from that date, admitting to people might have died in numbers later as a few days later numbers don't change the point I was making.
I see I should have made precise to you that the Gotland and Kalmar number was from same source. I thought it was obvious.
My bad.
I should have known better as I should have known that even if you saw me mentioning the 25th date, you predictably attacked the numbers as wrong instead of answering any of the numerous questions I have asked.
I did not go into any spreadsheet but used the death numbers as shown on the Sweden map.
I mistakenly assumed the darker colors to be the more serious hit regions by deaths/million.
That was a mistake.
I understand now that the coloros are by absolute numbers.
Again, my bad.
By the way Kåre, according to that page, the numbers as per january 25th is 10464, so no, not fewer than 10000 as you claim.
Be careful of rocks in glass houses and all that.
By the way I forgot to mention in my listings of flaws in swedish pandemic response yesterday that they have failed miserably in testing and tracing.. I've mentioned it quite a few times earlier obviously.
You see Kåre, I have nothing to hide, as I have no other agenda than the most realistic picture of Sweden's situation being painted in this thread.
The good, the bad and the ugly..
That's not your picture Kåre. You keep attacking the average but much improved child Kåre. Insisting on showing only the bad he does, forgetting to mentioning the good, forgetting to mention all the children that's doing worse. No nuance Kåre.
The agenda posting have long since passed the level of pathetic.
Yes Kåre. The pandemic is hyped. I've provided almost as many examples to that as to you having an agenda.
Look up various definitions of hype, most of them fits for the pandemic.
Why is it a hype Kåre? Because the world have quite a few issues, health wise and environmental to name a couple of the most obvious ones, that are just as preventable, threating more life if you will, yet they don't get the a fraction of attention they deserve because of this pandemic.
Saying the pandemic is hype is as controversial as saying there was a tulip hype in Netherlands in 1636 or stating 2+2=4, it's stating the obvious.
I can say for the umpteenth time: I UNDERSTAND why it's a hype, because it is quite understandable, never the less, it's a hype.
The fact that it is a hype does not mean I think it should not be mitigated by the way.
I don't care if you are personal. I've provided justificiation for my ad hominem's.
I just want to make sure your agenda is visible for all.