anorlunda said:
Sweden is called an outlier because it has refused lockdown.
I'm afraid that plot is innumerate nonsense.
You don't take 100 deaths/million and 50 deaths/million and add them to get 150 deaths/million. You just don't.
Second, those plots are cumulative. They, by construction, integrate out day-to-day effects. Sweden has a high death rate today, but it has since the beginning - since before anyone locked anything down.
Further, Sweden has a very high case fatality ratio, and has since the beginning. Picking "deaths" instead of "cases" to plot emphasizes this. One can argue the reasons this might be, but it emphasizes Sweden was an outlier since before anyone locked anything down.
So, what should they have used? I would suggests the fraction of deaths in the last 15 days compared to the total. If the whole point of a lockdown is to save lives, we should be seeing it save lives, no?
I picked 15 because it's easy to get off Wikipedia. But that's not a crazy number: 2-3 weeks since shutdoiwns began, and the disease has on average a 5-6 day incubation period, and a couple days for the disease to progress. That leaves time for one or two cycles. So what does the data say? Sweden is at 63%, Denmark 61%, Norway it's impossible to tell, and Germany (for comparison) is 71%.
Based on this data, it's hard to say lockdowns are doing anything at all. If you want to make a big deal of 61% vs 63%, that says a Swedish lockdown would have saved 24 people.
At this point, a lot of people are invested in the lockdown and see a Swedish failure as validation of their preferred policies. (And indeed, the ultimate source of that graph was from a news source whose owner has political ambitions) But if we want to to call ourselves scientists, we have to look at the evidence.
Oh, and did I say that plot is innumerate nonsense?