Roland Andersson analyzed the excess mortality trends in Sweden and discovered that other factors beyond pandemic management impact the discrepancies in excess mortality rates between countries. Svenska Dagbladet presented shaky figures indicating that countries with low GDP per capita such as Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Poland experience the highest excess mortality rates, while the richest countries like Luxembourg and the Nordics have fared the best. Although GDP per capita is not the only factor, people tend to forget this when they see ranking results.
In terms of excess mortality, there are more curves to extract from public data. The first two waves of the pandemic in 2020 affected Sweden while hardly affecting the rest of the Nordic region. The populations in 2021 were vaccinated and most pandemic measures phased out, evening out any differences over time. However, it does not justify that Sweden had much higher mortality rates than its neighboring countries, with thousands dying earlier than they would have otherwise.
Supporters of Sweden’s handling must explain to those who lost their loved ones that their premature death served a higher purpose. Moreover, there were more restrictions in Sweden than in neighboring countries, but distinct measures were implemented early in the beginning of each upswing in neighboring countries, which lowered the contagion rate more quickly.
Post-covid, there is extensive ongoing long-term morbidity in the population caused by Covid-19. The lack of public interest in finding out the extent of post-covid morbidity is concerning. Critics of Sweden’s handling of the pandemic followed what responsible people did and said given what was known at the time, unlike supporters who were unilaterally looking at conclusions. Despite numerous fundamental flaws, the supporters refused to acknowledge them. To improve the situation, we must work on fixing these flaws as Roland Andersson suggests.
Roland Andersson (15/3) looks at excess mortality trends for Sweden, loses himself in the data and forgets that it is a comparison between countries. It is also not difficult to see that there are other factors behind the differences in excess mortality than the countries’ pandemic management.
For example, it is clear even in the shaky figures in Svenska Dagbladet that GDP per capita has a negative relationship with excess mortality: Bulgaria, Slovakia and Poland rank highest, they are also among the countries with the lowest GDP per capita in the EU. The richest countries such as Luxembourg and the Nordics are the ones that have fared the least. And GDP per capita is of course not the only one. We actually know this but forget it in the rush of joy when we see a ranking that shows we are doing well.
But if we now like to look at excess mortality, there are more curves to extract from public data. Below is the excess mortality in percentage for us and our Nordic neighbors during 2020–2022. Demographic trends have been taken into account in this presentation. In addition, everything is not compressed into one number here, but we can follow what has actually happened:
The pandemic’s first two waves in the spring and autumn of 2020 are evident in Sweden’s data, but are small or completely absent in the rest of the Nordic region. In 2021, the populations were vaccinated and then most of the pandemic measures were phased out, so it is natural that any differences will even out over time, which has also happened. But the fact that the countries’ curves have approached each other again does not of course mean that it did not matter that Sweden was so much higher for a long time. Thousands of people died earlier than they otherwise would have.
Supporters of Sweden’s handling must therefore be able to explain to the relatives of all these deceased that their premature death somehow served a higher purpose. However, the supporters cannot claim that instead we have preserved our freedom and had less restrictions, because we have not: over time we have rather lived with mer restrictions than our neighboring countries, but they put in place distinct measures early in the beginning of each upswing, were able to bring down the contagion more quickly and lower the guard again. Since the infection increases exponentially, a few weeks make a big difference. Instead, we waited until we had very high contagion and were forced to maintain restrictions for a long time.
So even if if you specifically only look at excess mortality, there are serious objections to Sweden’s handling of the corona pandemic, but the main message with my previous submitter was that we need to look much wider than that. If we still stick to the outcome, we obviously have extensive ongoing long-term morbidity in the population caused by covid, which there is reason to suspect is more widespread in Sweden than in our neighbors due to the high rate of infection we had. However, the public has been conspicuously uninterested in finding out the extent of post-covid.
A central point that seems to separate critics and defenders of Sweden’s handling is that we critics do not unilaterally look at “conclusions” as Roland Andersson calls it, but followed what those responsible in different situations did and said given what was known at the time. If you do that, it is unfortunately hopeless to get the management together into something sensible. To go through all of this is impossible in a submission like this but the sheer number of fundamental flaws must be obvious to anyone who has followed the pandemic reasonably closely. These must be improved. Roland Andersson will therefore have to put up with the “lament song” in the future, or even better tune into it.
This is how you write on submitters and replies
More submitters: dn.se/insandare