Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgut | Hacker News Reader

It's not clear how Sweden's strategy is working compared to other Nordic countries. Norway has at the time of writing 255 deaths, Sweden 5646, and 19 vs 769 new cases today.[1][2] Norwegians are more or less back to normal life. Economically, Sweden did far worse than Norway as of 25. of June, with 25% more bankruptcies than previous year - same period - vs only 6.5% increase in Norway.[3]

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/norway/

[2] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

[3] https://e24.no/naeringsliv/i/AdjrvM/svenskene-fikk-konkursru...

View on HN

As a Norwegian I don't trust a Norwegian newspaper to be anywhere near impartial with regards to the economic question. I also think it's hard to compare Norway and Sweden economically given the amount of money spent on stimulus by Norway this year because of "the oil".

Are the Covid deaths counted the same way? It seems for example that Sweden are very aggressive with labeling a death as Covid and e.g. Finland are undercounting.

The number of cases seems more clear cut, and I agree that it's not clear that the strategy either failed or succeeded. Just pointing out some potential pitfalls comparing even these two relatively similar countries.

Look at my sibling comment to yours ref counting deaths. From the source [1] Finland didn't have nearly as high spike in overall deaths as Sweden (see Z-scores)

[1]: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

Unless you have reliable information about Sweden exaggerating the number of Covid deaths, I can't see the argument. Even if Sweden wrongly labelled 25% as Covid deaths, that's still a significantly larger number population size taken into account.

The bankruptcy numbers aren't a matter of opinion, these are public numbers that are regularly published by each respective country.

I didn't claim you made up the bankruptcy numbers. I just pointed out the economies are different. We are discussing a strategy for dealing with the virus, not who has the most money. If you've been to Scandinavia you will know who has the most money.

Exaggerating is a strong word. I don't think any two countries count deaths in the same way however.

As a Finn, I would be very interested to hear what are the sources for your claim that Finland are undercounting Covid-19 deaths. Further, could you elaborate in which way you claim Finland to be undercounting, such as Covid-19 deaths outside hospital setting, and is the undercounting supposed to be a country-wide policy, or limited to some specific regions?

Also what is the source for your claim about Sweden being very eager to label deaths as Covid-19? The excess death counts published by NY Times and Economist show only Belgium overcounting, and Sweden with more excess deaths than official Covid-19 deaths. If anything, Sweden's official total is unfortunately still missing hundreds of deaths, more than have died of Covid-19 in Finland or in Norway altogether.

Lots of people also say that Sweden's numbers are higher, because they count covid deaths differently. But looking at the number of deaths for this period compared to baseline [0], the number of deaths really spiked. While Denmark and Norway had overall normal numbers.

[0]: https://i.imgur.com/a2JEZ4j.png

Do you think it's possible that since more people have had the virus in Sweden, they are "through" to the other side while Norway isn't? How would that affect the excess death number?

I wouldn't know. But that's part of Tegnell's argument, yes. That when the second wave hits or this just goes on for years, Sweden will be better off. Hard to say right now, I think. 20/20.

For a contrary view regarding the economy:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/amp/news/sweden-coronavi...

From that article:

> A report from the research firm Capital Economics published on Tuesday found that the Swedish economy was the least harmed in Europe, describing it as the "best of a bad bunch."

> Though Sweden was not immune to the pandemic's economic impact, it was the only major economy to grow in the first quarter of the year, the report noted.

Can you explain how Sweden's performance in the first quarter has anything to do with Covid?

Most of the lockdowns happened at the end of the first quarter and lasted for most of the second quarter.

Maybe I'm missing something but it sounds like they are grasping at straws there when more accurate data shows the opposite picture.

Don't you think Sweden would have done even worse had they locked down?

This argument that hey look Sweden is still doing badly is ludicrous. Of course they do badly, no country is unaffected, Sweden is more industrialized and depends more on exports than Norway. Norway has a 1 trillion dollar stock market reserve from the oil. They will do fine.

The idea that locking down would have made things better in Sweden is absurd.

> Don't you think Sweden would have done even worse had they locked down?

I mean, we've only got all the other Nordic countries to compare against to evaluate this...

This dodges the question that I posed. Let me ask again:

Are you arguing that Sweden would have done better economically if they locked down?

Because that is what we are talking about.

No, I'm arguing Sweden saw the same economic damage - because people aren't stupid, and avoided doing the things a formal lockdown would have restricted anyways - without the infection control benefits of a formally managed one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...

That's the absurdity right there. Saying that no lockdowns cause the same damage as full lockdown.

When it comes to coronavirus NYT is no different then Fox News, they are looking stuff up in their gut, ignoring all evidence, pushing a narrative based on a preconceived notion.

Why does the NYT not state how surprising is that the caseload in Sweden did not spiral out of control, and is actually decreasing? Regardless of what the death rate is (which is still much lower than many other European countries) it was and is completely at odds to the narrative of epidemics control. A balanced, fair journalist would state that.

> Saying that no lockdowns cause the same damage as full lockdown.

It's borne out by various bits of evidence; most people wind up DIYing their own lockdown, even if the government doesn't order it. Restaurant reservation numbers dropped dramatically before the first lockdowns, for example, and didn't jump back up to normal in states that reopened early.

https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2020-03-14/restaurant-res...

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/19/american...

The benefit of a formal lockdown is enforcement for the small proportion of people who YOLO things.

Some food for your gut:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-didnt-impose-a-lock...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11775892/coronavirus-ravaged-s...

It's way too early to say what the best strategy would've been, but with hindsight-information it's not far-fetched to lean on a scientifically sound middle-ground. It's also too early to tell all the direct consequences of the virus itself.

Bingo!

> they are looking stuff up in their gut, ignoring all evidence, pushing a narrative based on a preconceived notion

It's obvious this is the case because their narrative hasn't changed despite so much changing and being proven wrong. There's no revising understanding based on evidence. It's defining your moral belief beforehand (e.g. anyone resistant to the draconian measures imposed by government is a misanthrope) and interpreting every development to support it.

Truth-seekers invite opposition, criticism and debate. I've seen none of that during the pandemic.

Any time I've seen people offer divergent arguments, it's met with the immediate response that disagreement is dangerous because "there's so much at stake".

It's all just the same politicizing, moral-superiority and demagoguery that's become far too common over the years.

The Scandinavian countries are actually quite different economically with regards to e.g. which industries represent most of their GDP. Since they are so small they are not very diversified. They're smaller than many US states and most people wouldn't make claims like this comparing those.

> They're smaller than many US states and most people wouldn't make claims like this comparing those.

People absolutely would, should, and do. Right now, the contrast between New York and Florida on reopening policy is pretty clear, despite differences in their economies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com