"Muh Sweden."

[tholdren]

Sorry to say, buddy, but this guy is another truther. His own graph pretty much defeats his argument. Let's look.



We can see Sweden (light blue) exceeded their all cause mortality vs. the previous year, while the Nordics matched it or even beat their previous all cause mortality figures. You really don't want to go too far back in comparing all cause mortality figures because different flu strains with varying levels of lethality appear in different years. Not to mention how treatments improve each year for various illnesses. This is why the all cause mortality baseline is usually projected rather than averaged from prior years (meaning his graph in picture 2 is useless). Here's the all cause mortality figures from Euromomo. We can see Sweden is almost 3 times above the "substantial increase" baseline, while the other Nordics kept all cause below that line.



Ain't trying to pick on you, but these truthers (Gato Malo made Zorin's "bad info" list) cleverly use tricks (example here is devising the all cause baseline by averaging deaths from prior years) for the purpose of downplaying or endorsing a mitigation strategy.

the above is only for weeks given not annually Jan through Jan. Your logic is terrible

[midnightpulp]

I've been trying with no luck to find a recent article I read earlier about how last year's flu season whether mild or extreme was the greatest indicator on how many deaths a country would experience with Covid.

I don't buy any of his arguments. Z-scores are misleading because he wants them to be. Not a very compelling argument. I get what he's trying to argue, but what is the scientific evidence of "why" countries with weaker flu seasons had more severe outbreaks? It's another one of those spurious correlations like the warm weather theory in April. It sure seemed like hotter climates weren't experiencing outbreaks. Now that theory has gone up in smoke.

And the knockdown argument I have against his central point is that IF the flu theory is correct and a country/region with a prior light flu season is a just a tinderbox waiting to ignite, then that actually justifies more measures, not fewer. And I know this guy's MO. Lockdown skeptic.

And with regard to the US, our 2019 flu season wasn't particularly light. About average.

https://blogs.sas.com/content/graphi...e-flu-in-2019/

[TSA]

I don't buy any of his arguments. Z-scores are misleading because he wants them to be. Not a very compelling argument. I get what he's trying to argue, but what is the scientific evidence of "why" countries with weaker flu seasons had more severe outbreaks? It's another one of those spurious correlations like the warm weather theory in April. It sure seemed like hotter climates weren't experiencing outbreaks. Now that theory has gone up in smoke.

And the knockdown argument I have against his central point is that IF the flu theory is correct and a country/region with a prior light flu season is a just a tinderbox waiting to ignite, then that actually justifies more measures, not fewer. And I know this guy's MO. Lockdown skeptic.

And with regard to the US, our 2019 flu season wasn't particularly light. About average.

https://blogs.sas.com/content/graphi...e-flu-in-2019/

"The 2018–2019 season in Sweden was dominated by influenza A and reached a moderate level of intensity. According to several surveillance systems, the season was less intense than the five previous seasons."

"Fewer people in the age group 65 years and older fell ill during the season than during the previous two seasons. Prolonged influenza activity was seen in this age group towards the end of the season, as influenza A(H3N2) began to dominate the season. No influenza-related excess mortality was seen among people 65 years and older, although a small peak in all-cause excess mortality was seen in week 1, 2019, in northern Sweden."

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/...den/?pub=63511

The flu theory can't just be brushed aside.

[TSA]

I don't buy any of his arguments. Z-scores are misleading because he wants them to be. Not a very compelling argument. I get what he's trying to argue, but what is the scientific evidence of "why" countries with weaker flu seasons had more severe outbreaks? It's another one of those spurious correlations like the warm weather theory in April. It sure seemed like hotter climates weren't experiencing outbreaks. Now that theory has gone up in smoke.

And the knockdown argument I have against his central point is that IF the flu theory is correct and a country/region with a prior light flu season is a just a tinderbox waiting to ignite, then that actually justifies more measures, not fewer. And I know this guy's MO. Lockdown skeptic.

And with regard to the US, our 2019 flu season wasn't particularly light. About average.

https://blogs.sas.com/content/graphi...e-flu-in-2019/

"The 2018–2019 season in Sweden was dominated by influenza A and reached a moderate level of intensity. According to several surveillance systems, the season was less intense than the five previous seasons."

"Fewer people in the age group 65 years and older fell ill during the season than during the previous two seasons. Prolonged influenza activity was seen in this age group towards the end of the season, as influenza A(H3N2) began to dominate the season. No influenza-related excess mortality was seen among people 65 years and older, although a small peak in all-cause excess mortality was seen in week 1, 2019, in northern Sweden."

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/...den/?pub=63511

The flu theory can't just be brushed aside.

[tholdren]

I don't buy any of his arguments. Z-scores are misleading because he wants them to be. Not a very compelling argument. I get what he's trying to argue, but what is the scientific evidence of "why" countries with weaker flu seasons had more severe outbreaks? It's another one of those spurious correlations like the warm weather theory in April. It sure seemed like hotter climates weren't experiencing outbreaks. Now that theory has gone up in smoke.

And the knockdown argument I have against his central point is that IF the flu theory is correct and a country/region with a prior light flu season is a just a tinderbox waiting to ignite, then that actually justifies more measures, not fewer. And I know this guy's MO. Lockdown skeptic.

And with regard to the US, our 2019 flu season wasn't particularly light. About average.

https://blogs.sas.com/content/graphi...e-flu-in-2019/

Lololool terrible illogical claim

[midnightpulp]

"The 2018–2019 season in Sweden was dominated by influenza A and reached a moderate level of intensity. According to several surveillance systems, the season was less intense than the five previous seasons."

"Fewer people in the age group 65 years and older fell ill during the season than during the previous two seasons. Prolonged influenza activity was seen in this age group towards the end of the season, as influenza A(H3N2) began to dominate the season. No influenza-related excess mortality was seen among people 65 years and older, although a small peak in all-cause excess mortality was seen in week 1, 2019, in northern Sweden."

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/...den/?pub=63511

The flu theory can't just be brushed aside.

What's the scientific reason, though? Intuitively, only reasons I can think of is that people who would've died in a more severe flu season luckily avoided catching it during the mild year, so the vulnerable population was larger in a country with a mild flu season vs. a country that had a previous severe flu season that reduced the vulnerable population. Or perhaps your immune system is on lower alert when you avoid catching the flu or another virus for a while.

But I don't see how this changes anything? If the theory is true, regions that have had mild flu outbreaks the year prior should actually ins ute more measures. This would actually mean Sweden failed even more not being more strict if they had a mild flu season previously.

[TSA]

What's the scientific reason, though? Intuitively, only reasons I can think of is that people who would've died in a more severe flu season luckily avoided catching it during the mild year, so the vulnerable population was larger in a country with a mild flu season vs. a country that had a previous severe flu season that reduced the vulnerable population. Or perhaps your immune system is on lower alert when you avoid catching the flu or another virus for a while.

That’s the theory. Older/vulnerable population that would have died in an average to above average flu season were still alive and got taken out by the next virus.

But I don't see how this changes anything? If the theory is true, regions that have had mild flu outbreaks the year prior should actually ins ute more measures. This would actually mean Sweden failed even more not being more strict if they had a mild flu season previously.

Theory is nothing more than armchair QB’ing looking at past data after the fact. Don’t think it was ever to influence policy.

[tholdren]

Notice the people who believe in lockdowns will never create any analysis of lives lost to lockdown or how many years of recovery this will lead to. Nor can they ever prove lives were saved. Nor can they prove that lockdowns had any net benefit.


All they will do is focus on inaccurate raw data and express the horror of daily case and fatality count knowing that these are inaccurate.

Job well done cancelculture

[midnightpulp]

Notice the people who believe in lockdowns will never create any analysis of lives lost to lockdown or how many years of recovery this will lead to. Nor can they ever prove lives were saved. Nor can they prove that lockdowns had any net benefit.


All they will do is focus on inaccurate raw data and express the horror of daily case and fatality count knowing that these are inaccurate.

Job well done cancelculture

We have some examples to look back to.

Life expectancy actually rose during the great depression.
The suicide rate didn't tick up significant during the 08 crisis and the aftermath.
A WPA program rebuilding our 3rd world infrastructure can get people back to work.

They locked down during the Spanish Flu as well.



I honestly see "your side" as the ones fear mongering, acting like 6-12 months of measures (and no, no state is totally "locking down," closures are more targeted and phased) is going destroy life as we know it and cause millions of suicides and overdoses.

[midnightpulp]

Notice the people who believe in lockdowns will never create any analysis of lives lost to lockdown or how many years of recovery this will lead to. Nor can they ever prove lives were saved. Nor can they prove that lockdowns had any net benefit.


All they will do is focus on inaccurate raw data and express the horror of daily case and fatality count knowing that these are inaccurate.

Job well done cancelculture

We have some examples to look back to.

Life expectancy actually rose during the great depression.
The suicide rate didn't tick up significant during the 08 crisis and the aftermath.
A WPA program rebuilding our 3rd world infrastructure can get people back to work.

They locked down during the Spanish Flu as well.



I honestly see "your side" as the ones fear mongering, acting like 6-12 months of measures (and no, no state is totally "locking down," closures are more targeted and phased) is going destroy life as we know it and cause millions of suicides and overdoses.

[tholdren]

We have some examples to look back to.

Life expectancy actually rose during the great depression.
The suicide rate didn't tick up significant during the 08 crisis and the aftermath.
A WPA program rebuilding our 3rd world infrastructure can get people back to work.

They locked down during the Spanish Flu as well.



I honestly see "your side" as the ones fear mongering, acting like 6-12 months of measures (and no, no state is totally "locking down," closures are more targeted and phased) is going destroy life as we know it and cause millions of suicides and overdoses.

You cant even give an accurate account of who has covid let alone who died from it. All you know is that under 45 is less than flu risk of death. Lockdowns not needed. You have no net benefits

[midnightpulp]

You cant even give an accurate account of who has covid let alone who died from it. All you know is that under 45 is less than flu risk of death. Lockdowns not needed. You have no net benefits

Untrue. Covid only starts being less dangerous than the flu in the <18 age group (I've showed you the IFR for all age groups). Also, younger people invariably pass it to older people. The idiotic idea of "just shelter the old, bro" is much, much easier said than done.

Lockdowns have a net benefit. They save lives. Refer to my data that you love to dismiss because it challenges your anti-lockdown stance.

[tholdren]

Untrue. Covid only starts being less dangerous than the flu in the <18 age group (I've showed you the IFR for all age groups). Also, younger people invariably pass it to older people. The idiotic idea of "just shelter the old, bro" is much, much easier said than done.

Lockdowns have a net benefit. They save lives. Refer to my data that you love to dismiss because it challenges your anti-lockdown stance.

1. Incorrect if for under 45 or with 0 preexisting conditions is less than flu

2. No it isnt only if you are in ny

3. They don't save lives. They prolong some lives which isn't even proven. They ruin millions more than they have prolonged which is proven. They also continue to ruin for years, which will also be proven.

[midnightpulp]

1. Incorrect if for under 45 or with 0 preexisting conditions is less than flu

2. No it isnt only if you are in ny

3. They don't save lives. They prolong some lives which isn't even proven. They ruin millions more than they have prolonged which is proven. They also continue to ruin for years, which will also be proven.

No it isn't, not when comparing age group to age group. Show your math here. Show me age stratified fatality rates for Covid vs. Flu for people with no preexisting conditions.

This didn't happen during the Spanish Flu, and countries that locked down, like Denmark and Norway, are already starting to return to normal.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, and here's a graph debunking the sheltering the old concept. From FL. Look how infection moves from younger to older.

[tholdren]

No it isn't, not when comparing age group to age group. Show your math here. Show me age stratified fatality rates for Covid vs. Flu for people with no preexisting conditions.

This didn't happen during the Spanish Flu, and countries that locked down, like Denmark and Norway, are already starting to return to normal.

Yes it is. I already have numerous times.

Lololool

Spanish flu. Hilarious

[midnightpulp]

Yes it is. I already have numerous times.

Lololool

Spanish flu. Hilarious

You've never showed age stratified IFR of Covid vs. the Flu.

[tholdren]

Oh, and here's a graph debunking the sheltering the old concept. From FL. Look how infection moves from younger to older.

bwwahahaahahahhahahahahha you dont knownhow to interpret that chart.

Its like your scatter plot


Bwahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahhahahaha hahahha

Take a stats class during lockdown

[tholdren]

You've never showed age stratified IFR of Covid vs. the Flu.

yes I have

[midnightpulp]

bwwahahaahahahhahahahahha you dont knownhow to interpret that chart.

Its like your scatter plot


Bwahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahhahahaha hahahha

Take a stats class during lockdown

Take that as your concession.

[midnightpulp]

yes I have

Link?

[tholdren]

Link?

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23...age-race-14863

Even with an elevated total ifr, which is incorrect, but here you go for the 50th time.

Shocking you can even argue this without knowing basic facts.

[tholdren]

As ive said before, your number sense is illogical, but at least you are trying to learn. Your bias is too strong to be logical.

[tholdren]

Also Alberto Boretti
"After leas than 2 months, the simulations that drove the world to lockdown appear to be wrong, the same of the policies they generated."

Read that paper

[tholdren]

And there you have it.
1. Ifr for 64 and under less than flu linked above
2. Science proving over count of covid and the inability to make policy based on wrong models linked above
3. Science explaing lockdowns do not work nor can be proven so based on 1 and 2.

Linked above and known since December

Quick scatterplots