Did Sweden beat the pandemic by refusing to lock down? No, its record is disastrous

[Chicks]

https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...was-a-disaster

[nailer]

The Swedes being badass Vikings probably has a lot to do with it.

Americans are badass and our Covid numbers reflect that.

It's culture.

[Dondilion]

The linked article is drenched with politics.

One should adopt a skeptical approach to data re Covid.

[nailer]

The thing about data is that "while numbers don't lie, liars can figure." When politicians, inveterate liars one and all, are added to the mix we get SNAFU. Covid upped the ante to FUBAR.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

The linked article is drenched with politics.

One should adopt a skeptical approach to data re Covid.

Originally Posted by nailer

The thing about data is that "while numbers don't lie, liars can figure." When politicians, inveterate liars one and all, are added to the mix we get SNAFU. Covid upped the ante to FUBAR.

The article refers to a study by researchers and published in the journal Nature wherein the researchers stated “The Swedish response to this pandemic was unique and characterized by a morally, ethically, and scientifically questionable laissez-faire approach" which resulted in Sweden having "...had ten times higher COVID-19 death rates compared with neighbouring Norway." The whole point of the study was to determine whether bad political decisions with regard to COVID (i.e., letting herd immunity take its course) had demonstrably bad consequences in Sweden.

Before spouting off with your skepticism about the findings of this study, perhaps you should read it and try to understand the points it was trying to make, even if they contradict your prior beliefs.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

The linked article is drenched with politics.

One should adopt a skeptical approach to data re Covid.

The writer is a 'business columnist,' not a straight reporter. Such writers have license to flavor their work with expressions of opinion, such as calling a reliably wrong pundit 'reliably wrong.' He gave an example of the pundit's wrongness. Was he objectively wrong in doing so? Or with anything else he said? Unless you can give us actual reasons to not trust him, I'm sticking with 'sounds reasonable to me.'

Denouncing the thing 'on principle' leaves you open to possibly ignoring the fact that he's basically right.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

... Before spouting off with your skepticism about the findings of this study, perhaps you should read it and try to understand the points it was trying to make, even if they contradict your prior beliefs.

Neither quote did what you're claiming. Mine was global, not specific. A riff on Don's chart. Improv.

Like pointing out that the headline is accurate which doesn't require any further reading of said article.