The world drastically over reacted due to panic, and only the Swedes kept their heads and followed a rational policy. Lockdown effects are going to be much worse than Covid itself.
-
-
Can you please show me the source of the data for that graph? I'd like to see the data that suggests that a minority of COVID-19 deaths in Sweden are directly due to COVID-19. Pretty sure even the British recategorisation hasn't led to any such conclusion.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Nikhil Karkhanis Retweeted Andreas Lönnmo 🏳️🌈
https://twitter.com/JarvsoLonnmo/status/1302593580012371969?s=19 … The source is right there in the thread. Unfortunately in Swedish, but has been explained by others.
Nikhil Karkhanis added,
Andreas Lönnmo 🏳️🌈 @JarvsoLonnmoReplying to @craniosurgeon @jhnhellstrom and 2 othersYou can read the report from ”Östergötland” Unfortunately not translated to English but Google translate will du the trick. This report reflects death outside hospitals https://www.regionostergotland.se/contentassets/621708f279b94b0e84fc3e4e2f5a337e/dodsfall-med-covid-19-pa-sarskilda-boenden-eller-i-eget-hem-i-ostergotland.pdf …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well that source contradicts the graph, according to Google Translate at least. It's also only about a tiny subset of care home patients in one part of Sweden
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
They have both data, in hospital and out of hospital. Their point is that Covid on it's own rarely kills. You need to be elderly, and have comorbidities.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's incorrect. Our meta-analysis showed remarkably high death rates even in middle age, with an exponential increasehttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v4 …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This paper gives an IFR of 0.4 at age 55, 1.3% at 65, so I don't see how you conclude remarkably high middle aged mortality.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nikhil_k56 @GidMK and
That IFR is almost certainly too high due to there being many more undiagnosed infections. Its probably out by a factor of 10.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @UntidyAllotment @nikhil_k56 and
That's incorrect - the entire purpose of our study was to identify IFR including undiagnosed infections
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @nikhil_k56 and
Apologies, I didn't read too deeply. The paper isn't peer-review though and a meta-analysis of flawed data is pretty much garbage in = garbage out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I usually read evidence before rejecting it out of hand
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.