What do the numbers show? ⋆ Brownstone Institute
During the Covid-19 pandemic, Denmark and Sweden took a very different approach. While Denmark introduced worm mandates, closed schools and repeatedly closed so-called “non-essential” companies, Sweden hardly introduced any comprehensive restrictions. Lockdown advocates have accused the Swedish authorities of ruthlessness and claimed that their approach has led to an unnecessary death toll.
But now the numbers are out, and according to two Danish professors, Christian Kanstrup Holm, virologist and professor at the University of Aarhus and Morten Petersen, professor of biology at the University of Copenhagen, in an article in the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende on July 8, the excess mortality rates in 2020 and 2021 were in fact the same in both countries.
In Denmark, strict restrictions were justified by the need to prevent the collapse of health care and the general public has generally accepted this justification. The professors’ conclusion, however, is that this motivation does not hold; despite very few restrictions in Sweden, Swedish healthcare was never even close to breaking down.
In 2020, Swedes certainly saw excess mortality, while mortality in Denmark was about the same as in previous years. But in 2021, this was reversed according to information. The two professors also point out that in 2020 there was actually no excess mortality in Sweden among those under the age of 75, which simply confirms how Covid-19 primarily attacks the oldest.
According to the models used to justify stricter restrictions in Denmark, approximately 30,000 people were expected to have died if Sweden’s strategy had been followed. But according to the information, the excess mortality in Sweden during the two years was around 6,000 and in Denmark 3,000, which corresponds to the same proportion as the Danish population is about half of the Swedish. Thus, the models were off by around 90%.
It can be added that this year we see a continued excess mortality in Denmark far above that in Sweden.
“It often happens,” say the authors, “that individuals, groups, or even entire populations become trapped in false dichotomies. . ”
While false notions can be harmless, “they can also last for a long time, even if they have serious negative consequences, both for individuals and entire populations.”
They call on the authorities to ensure that all consequences, including the negative effects of restrictions on public health, mental well-being, education and the economy in the future, are taken into account. For this to happen “it is crucial to have the courage to debate and analyze.”