Im not ignoring it at all. There is large variance here and we don't know if the downtrend would continue. The 5 years of 2014-2018 were relatively flat. Thats why I gave a range. 96k would be at the high end and unlikely.
-
-
Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq
I mean, it's a strong trend that has been present for the last 50 years not just in Sweden but across most/all developed nations. 96k requires you to assume that such a trend would not only discontinue but, given the 2019 figures, reverse!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The trend has been slowing down and its very difficult to extrapolate. There is a probability of increase. Just like life expectancy in the US decreased for men in 2019 (I believe). Strange things happen. This is how most people define ranges -formally it is a confidence interval
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq
Actually, that is not the correct definition of a confidence interval. It sounds more like you're trying to create a predictive interval taking into account uncertainty around the predicted decline, except it's very one-sided
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
If you were to take a realistic predictive interval taking into account the fact that 2019 is *likely* but not *definitely* an outlier, your true result would probably include 96k but also dip down into ~88k or lower
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The issue is that you weren't thinking about intervals. Theres no guarantee that Sweden mortality would decline because of historical trend. The rate of decrease has slowed. 2018 mortality rates give you just about 96k deaths. You cannot dismiss this as a possibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq
In the same vein, you cannot discount the possibility that 2019 was not an anomaly and that the mortality drop was part of a trend, which would mean a death rate of roughly 88k and excess mortality of 10k. Uncertainty cuts both ways
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'm not discounting it. I already showed you that using robust regression from the last 20 years of data gives you around 94k.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq
And what happens if you assume that rather than being an outlier 2019 is instead an acceleration of the existing trend?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
We don't really know. We'll need another 10 years to see where the current trend sits. I'd say its unlikely its an acceleration as the rate of change of mortality rate is highest for 50-60 crowd and slowly goes to 0 for the 100+ in the last 10 yearspic.twitter.com/JtwlXpNUMq
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'd say it's unlikely that there was going to be the biggest excess mortality in Sweden since WW2 without COVID-19
-
-
Yes, there was substantial excess. At least 2k. Maybe 8k if mortality has really dropped. But the excess is all coming from the 65+ group. 0-64 had very low mortality rates, just slightly worse than 2019.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And this is the key. Sweden kept a mostly normal society with no excess in those under 65. This was essentially a worse case scenario and they fared very well compared to the rest of the world. WW2 average age was much, much lower. Very small % of the population was even 65.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.