#Total lockdown ostern full

Included in the title for Part XI was the argument that Sweden was set to lose “0.02% of the population,” which refers to deaths above the level expectable in 2020 (+0.02%) given the highly mild 2019 (-0.02%). The estimates which were able to be made by that time have held up.

#Total lockdown ostern full

We were, by then, able to see the full scope of the Wuhan-Corona flu wave in Sweden. This effort, a graphing effort and identifying flu-spike years and comparing them to Wuhan-Corona in a coherent way (deaths as a % of population above recent baseline/trendline, i.e., “expected deaths”) is a continuation of a form of analysis I first proposed on these pages in April and May. Versions of graphs that I’ve made here have appeared since April, but never, I think, exactly like this one and the accompanying dataset. The contextualized data pointing towards the anti-Panic position has been central to the anti-Panic side’s core argument it is certainly the main reason I joined the anti-Panic side by mid-March, after leaning anti-Panic before that. It must be said, the data pointed this way (Wuhan-Corona are nothing to be alarmed about, NOT historically unprecedented) all along. Wuhan-Corona as Classic, ‘Ordinary’ Severe Flu Wave: No Surprise “Called” on available data by the Anti-Panic side since April One might say, “What’s the difference if it’s +0.03% or +0.04% or even +0.05%, all drawn from over-75s? Those are trivial losses not justifying panic or lockdowns.” That is a valid opinion, but the exact final magnitude of Wuhan-Corona 2020 in the context of flu waves of (more-or-less) living memory is the purpose here. This is all an exercise in number crunching. +0.05% now looks very unlikely late-2020 deaths would have to spike up to April levels to approach +0.05%. As of this writing at the end of November, the final ‘hit’ looks somewhat more likely to round to +0.03% than +0.04% +0.04% is still possible but is looking on the “generous” side. Wuhan-Corona’s “+0.04%” is the realistic worst-case now.

This is going to be the same in other countries. A ninety year old has lived through about twenty flu waves approximately equivalent to Wuhan-Corona.

Here are all the severe flu years for 1930 to 2020. The most important finding, one which I first noticed and wrote about in April in May, is that we have firm evidence that Wuhan-Corona is an ordinary flu wave, of the kind all living adults have lived through and never noticed. Clearly there were deeper forces at work that allowed the Panic Pandemic.) It’s funny what cycles complete themselves. I doubt many gave much of any thought in the entirety of the 2010s to the 2009 Swine Flu Panic, but it was a clear harbinger of the madness of 2020. (Note also in the graph how the Swine Flu of 2009 does not show up at all in full-year mortality - the vaccination racket associated with it is another story. (Note the worst flu year of the 2010s, 2012, was preceded by two modestly below-baseline years in 20.) You see that 2020 shows a clear “spike.” Around half of the 2020 spike’s magnitude is itself an upward correction to the unusually mild 2019 (which was around -0.02% below the long-running baseline). A calculation of the net-loss in “expected quality-life-years” associated with the Wuhan-Corona flu wave rounds to -0.00%, which means you’d have to go to the thousandths place to measure it at all - it looks likely to be as low as -0.001% this post will leave aside this important point, but a deeper age- and condition-adjusted analysis might show Wuhan-Corona as among the milder of the distinct flu waves of our time.) (This excess is entirely drawn from those above age 75. There are a lot of lessons here, and they go some way towards giving fuel to the investigative fires of how the destructive Panic could have happened.Įxpected: Deaths in 2020 in Sweden as a percentage of the population were expected to be 0.89% (the dotted orange line on graphs).Īctual: The year 2020, soon finishing, will end at either 0.92% or 0.93%, for an excess death range of +0.03% or +0.04% over the expected level (0.89%).