Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain
Token Daily is a place to discover trending news and products in crypto and blockchain.
Source: adamaltmejd.se ·
This page contains graphs and statistics related to the Covid-19 outbreak in Sweden.
Nick Szabo⚡️ - @NickSzabo4
4 months ago
RT @Daniilgor: New C19 deaths just collapsed in Sweden. It won't have more than 4,000 C19 deaths, and the Ferguson model predicted 96,000. https://t.co/PPLD8uuHYR
Sweden will have way fewer deaths per capita in the end than an average country with a large epidemic, lockdown and low testing
160
273
John Lilic - @JohnLilic
4 months ago
RT @Daniilgor: New C19 deaths just collapsed in Sweden. It won't have more than 4,000 C19 deaths, and the Ferguson model predicted 96,000. https://t.co/PPLD8uuHYR
Sweden will have way fewer deaths per capita in the end than an average country with a large epidemic, lockdown and low testing
107
193
glacierre2
4 months ago
The forecast of the first graph has a history of strong underestimation (check past versions, easily 30%).
I suspect a lot of people is misinterpreting the second graph, it is very difficult to judge delay trends from that one, in particular weekends, where the line is low, should be the days with worst delay (automatically +1/2 days compared to others) but the line is low.
So, double check what the graph represents before concluding anything.
1
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
So, half the deaths on a single day are not reported for a week or more. The delay can be as high as three weeks.
Is it any wonder that their "curve" always seems to be flattening in the last couple of weeks?
Well, of course it would, when half the deaths are not announced...
0
medborgaren
4 months ago
Litterally no day has half the column in blue, so kind of a weird statement.
4
level_5_ocelot
4 months ago
Looks like several days end up with more than 1/3 blue at least though.
1
medborgaren
4 months ago
Yes, I wonder if that is because of Easter with the 4 days of basically no reporting. If we look at the 16th now it's about to get it's dark blue values tomorrow and that light blue is fairly short. We'll see if they start growing longer again as tomorrow is half a work day for a lot of people and Friday is a day off.
1
medborgaren
4 months ago
The one in the link. For your statement (of half the deaths of a day to come in after more than a week) to hold at least one of the days should have more than half the height in the blue shades, right?
​
During the press conference today (apparently, I didn't watch it) it was mentioned that about 90% of the lag is handled in the first 9 days. So 9-10 days back should be somewhat reliable numbers according to that.
4
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
>The one in the link.
One? There are two graphs on the linked page. I was referring to the second one.
You did notice there were two graphs... right? I mean you actually paid attention to everything on that page... right?
> 90% of the lag is handled in the first 9 days
Have a look at the *second* graph. That graph shows the deaths sorted by the day they were *reported* along the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is the number of days the report was delayed. So if a death occurred 7 days before it was reported, it is shown in light blue on the "7 days" line.
See the dotted line? That's the trend.
Now, how often over the last two weeks has the trend been less than "7 days"? The most generous count is the trend has been less than "7 days" on only 4 days of the last 14.
1
umlautbaever
4 months ago
The graph isnt from official sources. The 90% within 9 days is the official number mentioned in one of the daily press briefings.
1
medborgaren
4 months ago
Yes, of course I know there are 2 graphs there. You don't take the size of the spheres into account.
​
And if your theory is to hold true, a single bar in the upper graph should have half the column in blue, and none has.
1
InfiniteEducation1
4 months ago
Low population density + good health care + relatively healthier elders
2
atealein
4 months ago
It is important to note that the author has also commented that if there is a decline in the deaths it will be masked for a while by the lag - people will just keep expecting that the values are low because the deaths haven't been reported yet. So we will likely find out we are past the peak few weeks after it when it is certain the backlog doesn't go as far.
17
Surfsupforthesummer
4 months ago
The graph also shows the forecast (avg.lag) grey area. Which has has quite a consistent prediction in the past(actually over estimated).
3
atealein
4 months ago
The forecast is based on superposition of two functions - the death curve and the lag. Forecast is made with the assumption that the lag will be the same. But if the death curve changes that will change the values without being connected to the lag.
2
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
No, you're misreading that graph.
The grey areas are the extra deaths that are still expected to be added to those days due to the delay in reporting.
You're not seeing any historical prediction that was missed, you're seeing what is still predicted to be announced over the coming days.
EDIT: See my other reply above... these forecasts have actually been consistently lower than the actual counts.
2
umlautbaever
4 months ago
You seem to not understand the mathematical model behind the graph. It takes the average delay earlier in the graph and projects that forward. That means that it obviously will underestimate when theres an upward trend as you correctly noted and overestimate when theres an downward trend. This is a natural artifact of the model and not evidence of nefarious behaviour.
2
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
> This is a natural artifact of the model and not evidence of nefarious behaviour.
The "evidence of nefarious behaviour" is the obvious increasing delay in reporting deaths.
At the beginning of April most deaths were reported within days of occurring. By the end of April the delay was as high as 28 days, or more.
Why is it taking the government longer and longer to report deaths? If the number of deaths is as low as they are claiming, then surely they can't be overloaded with new deaths?
The model is false because it relies on the lag remaining the same. The truth is the lag is getting longer and longer. Conveniently enough, this has the effect of making the number of deaths appear to be lower than they actually are.
I'm sure that's just a happy accident...
0
umlautbaever
4 months ago
> The model is false because it relies on the lag remaining the same.
Yes... Thats what an average is? It just says "if shit stays exactly the same, what would happen".
It does exactly what it says it does. You are just not understanding it. Its not an accurate prediction of the future, nor is it trying to be its some guys statporn.
>The truth is the lag is getting longer and longer.
But its not getting longer. It hovers between 6-14 days for 90% of cases reported.
What you have misinterpreted as the lag is getting longer, the 28 day delays is the missed cases from the start of the pandemic in sweden. Some cases got missed but they are beeing searched for and found now.
The fact that they are going through old cases and adding them to the official statistics is in fact the total opposite of trying to hide something.
2
WhatDoYouMean951
4 months ago
but this comment is unfair, since the poster you replied to made that exact observation (presently, 3h ago vs die comment 1h ago), so they clearly don't merely misunderstand it. moreover, their reply was to someone who said it overestimated, and there was no hint of an accusation of nefarious behavior
2
umlautbaever
4 months ago
Possibly unfair but not inaccurate. The person i responded to has made multiple claims of governemental malfeasance in this thread. I have choosen to interpret this as him not understanding the model rather than an act of ill will.
>Or is the government manipulating the figures to hide the truth?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/gaa8l2/comment/foz2ikl
>The Swedish government is fudging the numbers. It's obvious.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/gaa8l2/comment/foz20tw
>It seems to me this method of predicting the counts is actually very faulty and results in significant under-counting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/gaa8l2/comment/foyzeiv
1
WhatDoYouMean951
4 months ago
😮 i don't think know what to make of that, but i don't think it's a misunderstanding of the model.
2
train4Half
4 months ago
So, if I'm reading this correctly, the most recent data is probably missing some counts (the light blue 7-14 day lags)? The recent decline might just be bc reported data is incomplete?
7
Chipsacus
4 months ago
Yes, the official data that this graph uses puts deaths on the actual day of death and due to paperwork lag they rarely get added on the same day. In the latest press conference it was mentioned that average lag is about nine days atm.
9
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
Funnily enough... the so called "flattening" of the curve begins about 14 days ago...
You know, within the range of "reporting delays".
2
Chipsacus
4 months ago
They use intensive care need to predict the curve and that has been stable and slightly dropping
2
level_5_ocelot
4 months ago
Yep and there is a lot of scepticism of that too, when they boast an 80% recovery rate in ICU when elsewhere is seeing ~20%. It’s easy to keep ICU numbers stable and low when you don’t admit the severe cases.
2
Chipsacus
4 months ago
20% was not an accurate figure, that was only people who had stopped using ventilators in NY (i think) and most of them were dead, it didnt count the ones still alive and using one.
2
WhatDoYouMean951
4 months ago
I'm covered by your content. do you mean if a person was on a vent for a week and got better and put into a regular room, they're in the 20%, if they died so they come off they're in the 80%, but if they're still on the machine they don't fall into either category?
2
Chipsacus
4 months ago
Yes the 20% was only counting the people who no longer used the machine but was still alive. If 100 ppl needed ventilator and after a few days 1 was ok and stopped using it and 4 others dies it would count 20% survival and 80% death.
3
hattivat
4 months ago
Elsewhere isn't seeing 20%, being in ICU does not equal being on a ventilator and even for ventilators 20% is far from the average, it's actually the worst figure I've seen.
3
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
Maybe so... but the actual reported deaths haven't been. Not really. What has been happening is the government is taking longer and longer to report deaths, so that you're not seeing real numbers until two or three weeks after they happen.
Take the site linked in the OP. The method used to predict the total number of deaths each day on that site has been consistently underestimating the actual count.
Here, for example, is that page as it appears on April 22:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200422114913/https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/](https://web.archive.org/web/20200422114913/https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/)
It predicted the total number of deaths for April 14 to be less than 80.
The latest version of the graph shows the reported number to be over 90, and the expected total to be closer to 95. That's 20% higher than was predicted.
April 15 was predicted to be around 91. In actuality it was 110 with more to come.
In fact just look at the second graph on the current version of the page. Notice how the blue dots are becoming bigger and darker? Clearly the delay in reporting is actually increasing significantly. Which is why any predictions based on "average lag" are going to be too low.
The Swedish government is fudging the numbers. It's obvious.
0
umlautbaever
4 months ago
>The Swedish government is fudging the numbers. It's obvious.
An up to 14 day delay for an official death count is normal.
Source the CDC for example:
>Death counts for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS. COVID-19 death counts shown here may differ from other published sources, as data currently are lagged by an average of 1–2 weeks.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
5
glacierre2
4 months ago
I find perfectly normal to find the odd case 15 days later, even a month. But not a significant fraction of cases, specially during a pandemic and when you are not supposed to be swamped.
So, is that CDC telling that numbers can dance for two weeks, or that you can miss a lot of deaths for two weeks? Is not the same
1
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
>An up to 14 day delay for an official death count is normal.
Have a closer look at the second graph....
Is a 28 day delay... "normal"?
1
umlautbaever
4 months ago
No its not normal. Have a closer look at the second graph. The dotted line is the 90% percentile. Meaning that 90% of deaths have been reported at 14 days or less.
Its only been over 14 days on one day. April 23.
So I would argue that 14 days or less is still the norm.
ETA: As for the reason for the 28 day delay. My best guess its the result of a announced effort to run through the data from the early days of the pandemic to make sure no-one was missed.
1
Blippy_Swipey
4 months ago
Frankly, I think Swedish government is among the most honest in terms of reporting the deaths. I have seen several reports of estimating accuracy of governments reporting covid deaths and Sweden is always among the best. Not saying that there isn't errors, but it's not intentional and they aren't hiding.
Here is a nice example:
[https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac846c](https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac846c)
11
umlautbaever
4 months ago
Dont bother. Hes in every thread about Sweden making the same claims. People keep showing him links that an up to 14 day delay in reporting is the norm. Yet he persists. I suspect he has an agenda.
7
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
OK... Let me say this clearly...
if **UP TO 14 DAYS** is normal, why does the graph on OP's link show many reports taking **longer than 14 days**, and some even taking **longer than 28 days**?
Are you going to change your claim to say that "up to 35 days is normal"?
Or are you going to admit that the delays that the graph at OP's link shows appear to be much longer than "normal"?
1
umlautbaever
4 months ago
We seem to have a problem here that you don't know what normal means.
Normal means that most cases fall within a pattern, not that all cases do, there are always outliers. 90% should be close enough for most reasonable people.
An example would be the iq normal range of 90-110. Where most people are hence "normal". But obviously there are peope higher on the scale. And just as obviously some are lower.
>Definition of normal (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal
2
Chipsacus
4 months ago
His history shows he's doing only this stuff and account is a few days old, clearly spreading misinformation intentionally. Most likely a troll factory worker for china since he's supporting them.
6
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
My account is a few days old?
>Cake day
>
>February 23, 2015
I see you're using that "Swedish Government" math... LOL
2
umlautbaever
4 months ago
His latest posts are in threads about China. I also suspected its one of Jinpings piglets
But with a 5y old account seems unlikely.
5
ZgylthZ
4 months ago
Idk they still have a large spike in deaths according to that graph. It may just look like a smaller spike because the graphs are using absolute death rates (absolute dead per time frame) instead of relative to population size (people dead relative to population size per time frame)
2
randomname19029
4 months ago
The forecast uses an average of the lag of the previous days, so naturally it can only predict that mortality will remain steady. Wouldn't be able to tell if it actually was going up or down.
5
knappis
4 months ago
> so naturally it can only predict that mortality will remain steady.
That makes no sense at all and is not true. The lag predicts the lag only, but underneath you find reported deaths that can increase or decrease (and has in the past). The plot will be accurate as long as the reporting lag is stable.
1
randomname19029
4 months ago
>The plot will be accurate as long as the reporting lag is stable.
Sorry, I might have worded it poorly, but yes that's the point. If the backlog increases due to more deaths, or vice versa if deaths decrease, the forecast will be off. It assumes the number of deaths (in absolute numbers, not relative) in backlog remains average. That is a bad assumption if the size and shape of the backlog is proportional to the actual number of deaths, which seems likely to me.
3
audioen
4 months ago
Nah, I bet if you suddenly had lots of deaths in 1 day lag, the prediction for that day would shoot up a lot. I do not see a real discussion about the method used to construct the estimate, but at its simplest it would be a simple multiplication factor, e.g. if past data suggests that 10 % of all deaths that occurred on a particular day are reported on the same day, then you'd just multiply the number of reported deaths by factor of 10 and call it estimate for that day. It could be doing something a lot more sophisticated, though, who knows.
0
randomname19029
4 months ago
It says it right there in the subtitle, it's just an average of the lag in the last 3 weeks. If the backlog increases a lot or decreases a lot, the forecast will be wrong.
1
Surfsupforthesummer
4 months ago
Our death rate is 18% above average. Check out how other countries are doing.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
Edit: above
2
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
Hmm... I thought I'd have a look at the history of this site to see how good that forecast has been. Here is a link to what that page looked like on April 17:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200417050221/https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/](https://web.archive.org/web/20200417050221/https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/)
Have a look at the number of deaths predicted for April 15. It seems to be about 86.
Now have a look at the latest graph again, paying attention to the count for April 15. Oh my... the actual number was closer to 115, and is still expected to rise. That's 33% higher than predicted!
In fact every day after April 8 was predicted to remain under 87, yet only two stayed anywhere near 87. The rest were significantly higher.
It seems to me this method of predicting the counts is actually very faulty and results in significant under-counting.
7
randomname19029
4 months ago
That's a very good find, the accuracy of a model needs to be judged on its performance, and that is not a good sign. As expected, it seems like it always "forecasts" a leveling off, when unfortunately it seems the numbers kept increasing.
6
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
It's obvious when you look at the second graph on the current version of the page.
The blue dots show cases that were reported over 7 days after they actually happened. You can clearly see that as the month has gone on, the lag has increased. With many more deaths taking 7 days or more to be reported.
If the lag is increasing, any forecast based on the average lag will be too low.
The question is, why is it taking longer to report deaths now than only four weeks ago? Are the government's systems becoming overwhelmed with reports which is causing longer and longer delays?
Or is the government manipulating the figures to hide the truth?
4
umlautbaever
4 months ago
>Or is the government manipulating the figures to hide the truth?
No?
We keep telling you. An up to 14 day delay for an official death count is normal.
Source the CDC for example:
>Death counts for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS. COVID-19 death counts shown here may differ from other published sources, as data currently are lagged by an average of 1–2 weeks.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
5
KiwiBattlerNZ
4 months ago
Up to 14 days is "normal"?...
Well I'm looking at the second graph in OP's link and it is saying that deaths are taking over 28 days to be reported, in some cases.
The dark blue dots are deaths that were reported more than 14 days after they occurred. It isn't the odd one or two cases, either. It's dozens of cases, with the number of such cases increasing over time.
1
Hellbucket
4 months ago
I don’t think we’re gonna have an answer to this until much later. But my hunch is when this crisis is behind us Sweden’s figures will be closer to the actual excess deaths figures than a lot of countries. It’s still valid to criticize the lag. Sweden has a hang up on reporting correct data and secure data. It might not be productive when numbers need to be crunched fast.
4
bloody_hell
4 months ago
Not spiking. That’s good to see. As much as I might have been secretly hoping to be able to use Sweden as a warning to idiots, it looks like they might be managing it.
8
Purplem00535
4 months ago
I live in Sweden, thankfully not in Stockholm though. Where I am, the nursing homes are hit and tragically, several are dead, but I haven't seen a large community spread over here. We're still getting hit hard economically as a lot of industry has had to lay off people (Volvo especially, holy shit), but for the most part, people here are respecting the recommendations from the public health agency led by Anders Tegnell.
When it first came here at the end of January, I was extremely critical of how Sweden was handling it, but I hope that I was just wrong and being reactionary based on what the other Nordic countries were doing.
9
eveniwontremember
4 months ago
I understand your reasoning but I prefer to hope that Sweden is successful and possibly identity aspects of the current lock down that have minimal effect and can be removed. Reopening primary and junior schools being a prime example.
3
tgmeier
4 months ago
He said he's rooting for Sweden to fail so that he can use it as evidence... does that require further explanation, in your eyes?
4
whycantiremembermyun
4 months ago
Aww CRAP, my apologies, i thought that was to my response....
I apologize r/tgmeier
1
churnthrowaway123456
4 months ago
That's insane talk. Why would you *want* to justify draconian lockdowns?
10
lisa0527
4 months ago
Nobody wants draconian lockdowns. It’s just that some people don’t want to see a lot of avoidable deaths, and are willing to accept a lockdown if that’s what needed.
1
falsekoala
4 months ago
I will say, lockdowns are only happening because governments didn’t think it would be a problem until it was knocking at the door. They didn’t know how else to deal with it besides “stay the fuck at home.”
I’ve been “staying the fuck at home” for six weeks already. What’s coming next? What other strategies work?
6
churnthrowaway123456
4 months ago
Then why would you want a country to fail? You wanted people in Sweden to die to prove a point, that's being a psychopath.
The entire fucking point of a lockdown is because we are being cautious. If another country proves that we can be less stringent *and* still save people, that's the IDEAL. You should be cheering on Sweden, not being a spiteful dick.
9
WhatDoYouMean951
4 months ago
sweden hasn't proved you can save lives. they have a comparable number of deaths to the worst hit countries and did not protect the vulnerable. at this stage, i doubt sweden proves anything.
3
churnthrowaway123456
4 months ago
Sweden has fewer deaths than Michigan with roughly the same population
1
WhatDoYouMean951
4 months ago
michigan is in the united states, which has generally proved that a confused non-response that is crazy and disorganised and characterised by shop owners rejecting the advice of mayors rejecting the advice of state governors rejecting the advice of the federal government does not actually achieve any admirable outcomes.
in order for the swedish response to be admirable, they had to keep the disease away from the vulnerable while allowing it to propagate through the rest of the country. the didn't do that; so the outcome is likely to be about average at the end of the day, if every country goes through to completion, and maybe over sooner. but that's a big if (a smaller maybe)
2
churnthrowaway123456
4 months ago
It's admirable because the result is roughly the same for Covid, but people get to enjoy their lives more!
Fewer disruptions for the same result is better!
1
Principincible
4 months ago
Say every scientist in the world says global warming is real, only one guy says it's not. Wouldn't you want that to have consequences? It's like gambling with lives, it can be even unethical to go against the opinion of almost every expert in the field. That's not rooting for deaths, that's pointing out that everyone else was justified in doing what they did. You can't just experiment with lives like that.
2
bloody_hell
4 months ago
Maybe you missed my intended meaning. I was trying to own up to my own internal bias. Of course I want them to succeed.
13
whycantiremembermyun
4 months ago
> As much as I might have been secretly hoping to be able to use Sweden as a warning to idiots
This is hard to read, and to be honest makes me sad. In the US it feels like people can't wait for states to fail with reopening, drive me crazy. If you want to reopen, its cause you want people to die or some BS like that....
13
saintr0main
4 months ago
But your average American (that I come across) also thinks values money over life, or the life of their neighbor, and they've vocal about it. "Those who die are old and weak, let me live my life!" And there is the ones who berate people who share how the virus has effected them (usually death, or a mere survival). The virus, media and president has completely divided this nation.
0
bloody_hell
4 months ago
It wasn’t easy to write. A moment of radical honesty, maybe. We all want our opinions validated, even while not wanting people to die.
I think people want to go back to how it was, but if reopening happens too quickly, or is not managed well, the outcome will be the same. People will lock down voluntarily if the virus is running rampant.
19
whycantiremembermyun
4 months ago
I appreciate your response, lets be honest the more we open up the more cases we will see, that's a fact but can the healthcare system manage it. I think we need understand that the whole flatting the curve was to keep the healthcare from becoming overwhelmed. Indirectly it affect the speed of the virus spreading but the intention was never to stop the spread. Sweden has managed to control the spread
A side note, its nice to find good conversation on here when you see so much toxic garbage, so thank you!
6
Chipsacus
4 months ago
Well you're not alone, i've read a lot of threads in this forum and the focus and hate on Sweden is so weird. Some seem to be rooting for tens of thousands to die and the streets to be packed with dead bodies.
26
codeverity
4 months ago
I think a lot of the frustration is coming from the fact that Sweden has become a flashpoint for those who want to go “lockdowns are stupid, we don’t need to do anything, this is all overblown!” So many people don’t understand that you can’t just extrapolate everything from one country to another.
6
whycantiremembermyun
4 months ago
It’s like this “I told you so” mentality, instead of i really hope this works!! I’m rooting for them thought process.
5
bloody_hell
4 months ago
I think it’s natural for people to be tempted to wish failure upon those who disregard their impassioned warnings. I don’t think people should do it. I was trying not to. But I understand it.
2
Trending this week..
Join Our Newsletter
Post a Job
Teams Hiring Now
-
TokenSoft is the volume leader in compliant token sales.
-
The open protocol for tokenized debt.
-
A secure online platform for buying, selling, and storing digital currencies.
-
A second layer, off-chain scaling proposal for bitcoin.
-
Ensuring the blockchain is inexpensive and accessible to everyone.
-
An open protocol for decentralized exchange on the ethereum blockchain.
- See all