1. It's time for the weekly "data from Sweden" thread.
This week 4 main things.
A. Increase in the number of reports
B. Deaths still being reporting back to mid-december
C. Comparing to France?
D. Data on school suggest closing would help.

Let's go!
⬇️⬇️⬇️

2. First, before this week, somehow the swedish public health agency did not consider COVIC too important and reported on deaths only twice a week.
3. I mentioned last week that things are being taken much more seriously now since the government has passed a new temporary law to allow them to close public places likely to spread the virus.
4. You can read more about it in a great article reporting on the Swedish situation with analysis from @FLAHAULT as well. It's all in French though, but would be happy to help if google translate is not enough. https://t.co/5cKOWExSW5
5. If you've been following me before, you know that I have mentioned many this and all the other issues with the situation in Sweden before. You can find short sum ups in these two videos (also in French and with @FLAHAULT)
https://t.co/3Dt77hL7Bd
https://t.co/21nGmoAkQP
6. Back to the topic, things are being taken more seriously this week too, now the Swedish Health Agency reports on deaths everyday. Let's look at how many deaths they have reported this week.
7.Breakdown per date:
12th --> 234
13th --> 167
14th --> 351
15th --> 138

The increase in report frequency is clearly visible in this screenshot which has all the data I mentioned.
8. Now, I have mentioned before that there is a lag in the report of death. This is clearly visible in these two graphs from yesterday and today.
We are adding deaths all the back to mid-december.
9. Not a lot admittedly, but adding 1 or 2 deaths everyday for mid-december eventually creates the dramatic data that we see now.
10. The lag in the report of deaths has been explained a 1000 times before. For more info, read here
https://t.co/8EwmNXgIbs
And check the data here: https://t.co/pF2NgV2HjL
11. Now many "plandemic" wannabe scientists keep telling me that at least Sweden is free and that it does better that countries like France for deaths and the economy.
Is that true though? Let's take a look.
12. To answer we need to consider 2 things. First, the second wave started in France on the 17th of October. In sweden only on the 13th of November, when France was almost at its peak. Clearly visible in the figure here.
13. Then we have to consider that there is a delay in the report of deaths in Sweden. As I said, we are still today adding deaths for all the way back to mid-december. That's a delay in reporting of 2 or 3 weeks.
14. Without even taking into account these two factors, we see already that Sweden is almost as bad as France in death/M. If we consider just the delay in reporting and compare Fra (2 and 3 weeks ago) to Swe... what do we get?
15.
Sweden today = 1064 deaths/M
France 1 week ago = 1021 deaths/M
France 2 weeks ago = 992 deaths/M
France 3 weeks ago = 955 deaths/M
16. So by very roughly adjusting for a delay of 1 week Sweden already has more deaths/M than F. Without adjusting, almost just as many. Dramatic!
17. Now is the time to remind everyone that comparisons such as this one do not make sense. France and Sweden have very different demographics, by this I mean: a different age repartition, a different density of population.
18. But also different social behaviours, a different healthcare system, etc... And most of these factors played in favor of nordic countries (not very densily populated for instance).
19. So comparing Sweden to France is nonsensical. Comparing Sweden to its neighbours makes more sense and can help us better understand if Sweden had a good strategy. Especially considering that neighbours had more strict regulations. So did it?
20. The very obvious answer to this is "Hell no!" Sweden has 2 to 3 times more deaths/M that all its neighbours combined! Dramatic!
21. Now people will tell me that at least Sweden saved its economy. 2 things to answer to this. The first is "Hell no!" Yet again neighbours did better.
https://t.co/bcylYEcTRc
22. The second is to remind people that the whole saving lives VS saving the economy is a complete false dichotomy (also indicated by the previous source)
https://t.co/CS8ibQYC7g
23. Now onto more bad news.
Close look at data from schools. A reminder first, all highschools are closed and education has been distant since April.
24. New data from weeks 46 to 50 in Sweden reports a total of 467 outbreaks in schools (highschools excluded), which corresponds to 48% of all the reported outbreaks in this period (967).
https://t.co/TZ8BaMoy3f
25. The Swedish health agency states in the report that "Among environments for the general public, compulsory school was the environment from which most outbreaks were reported in week 50, followed by other workplaces and preschools"
https://t.co/TZ8BaMoy3f
26. Source for this is the same as from the data: https://t.co/TZ8BaMoy3f
27. Some more things? Yes!
While some people on TV or here try to make you think that no one is worried in Sweden, it's not true.
28. Some professors fear that the total death toll might be up to 15000 when we are through with this.
https://t.co/qyXHlMRSlH
29. These concerns are relayed also by the predecessor (Annika Linde) of Anders Tegnell (same source)
https://t.co/qyXHlMRSlH
30. Annike Linde also confirms that we should compare Sweden to other nordic countries only and that the Swedish strategy is the one reason for such bad numbers (same source)
31. Finally even Anders Tegnell admits now that their prediction downplayed everything. In some cases, the real data is 72% worse than the worst case scenario they imagined.
https://t.co/7G9LeeCLJu
That's it for this week and debunking the crap said about Sweden and it's "wonderful" strategy.
People, make this more viral than COVID.
Poke @vetcov19 @schneiderleonid @DavidSteadson @gorskon

More from World

1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...


2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see

3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result

4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...

5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.