Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David AuBuchon's avatar

Relatively speaking:

- Sweden did not fare any worse than any other country, despite a lighter touch. Not a good sign for lockdown advocates

- In some age groups 2021 was not clearly better than 2020, despite 5 reasons to expect it (vaccines, natural immunity, survivor bias, milder variant, better treatments). Since lockdown harms can’t be blamed for this failure in Sweden, this increases the probability that vaccines are the explanation of the bodies.

- The downward trends in some age groups are intriguing. There is no “pulling forward” to explain that, as it happens right from the start of 2020. This raises the hypothesis I’ve held since the beginning: covid may have some health benefits. Fever-causing pathogens tend to be that way (pyrotherapy). Loads of epidemiological studies on this. Possible preventative effects may happen with cancer, flu, heart disease, and stroke. It may be important to find out what people are dying less from in the 60 to 69 age group in Sweden these last couple years to see if it fits the things a virus might benefit. Can't really study this in a country that had hard lockdowns.

Expand full comment
Tom Hogan's avatar

Maybe the difference is that vitamin D deficiency has been reduced in Sweden. Perhaps working immigrants (who are more likely to have vitamin D deficiency) avoided Sweden.

"Patients born outside Europe (n = 66) had 15 nmol/l [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.17–20.84] lower levels of vitamin D than patients born in Europe. Vitamin D deficiency was more common in patients born outside Europe (50%) than in patients born in Europe (11%, odds ratio 8.20 95% CI 2.49–26.98, p < 0.001)."

People living in Sweden benefited more from the following action than temporary working immigrants.

https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2015/05/28/Sweden-to-expand-mandatory-vitamin-D-fortification

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245030/

Expand full comment
27 more comments...

No posts