Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nursing homes - charts[edit]

Are there any objections against adding following chart (from official source) into Nursing homes section

COVID-19 deaths of 70+ years old inhabitants by place of death and county

References

  1. ^ "Statistik om covid-19 bland äldre efter boendeform". Socialstyrelsen (in Swedish). "Statistik för bekräftat smittade och avlidna med covid-19, 70 år och äldre" (XLSX). Socialstyrelsen (in Swedish). sheet "Avlidna - dödsplats - län".

84.47.179.91 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

POV issues[edit]

There has been some edit disputes in the lead section over characterisation of the Swedish government's response to COVID-19, particularly criticisms of the issue. Let's remember that WP:COVID-19 articles have high standards for sourcing, with weight particularly given to reliable, medical sources, over popular media and newspaper outlets. Please see WP:MEDRS for guidelines. It's also not a fringe or minority that have questioned Sweden's approach (the King and Prime Minister for example?), as is covered in Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic: e.g. Science.

There has also been a dispute over whether to specifically mention Covid Norway, Covid Denmark. These comparisons have actually been given WP:DUE weight in reliable, medical sources, hence their inclusion. These countries follow a similar governance (Nordic model) and have comparable demographics, population densities and culture, but have taken very different COVID-19 approaches, hence why research has investigated this. Several reliable sources have also noted the number of cases and deaths in Sweden is several times the number of all other countries in Scandinavia combined - hardly a misleading or disputable fact. This article should reflect this better. A few source examples:

I'm also very dubious of the statement about "overcounting" in the lead. This hardly deserves the amount of WP:WEIGHT in the lead that it has - readers could interpret this as an inflation of the case count. It could probably be moved the body of text but needs to be carefully worded to avoid misinterpretation. Welcome any thoughts.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Nature, 22 March 2022, Evaluation of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden which could be used for general summary for goverment policies if it needs more support from references. -- Zache (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great article, thank you for sharing! I'll add it as a source above. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Distrait cognizance:: Question why this article is not an appropriate source, nor a proper review (per diff)? --Zache (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question which is an heavily opinionated argument piece published not in Nature, but in Humanities & Social Sciences Communications is from a Zero-Covid anti-government group called Vetenskapsforum Covid-19. It was not published in a biomedical journal, and the journal is not even an indexed biomedical resource. It is thus not an WP:RS, and it is not WP:DUE in relation to the Corona Commission or other high-level commentary. It is highly problematic to use it, and it does not present any arguments that can not be brought forth using better sources. It may seem to pull together multiple lines of reasoning, but does so in a very non-neutral and non-reliable sensationalist way. There are better sources, and it does not add anything, whereas citing it detracts from the overall reliability of the WP-article. Distrait cognizance (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is taken to talk :User:Arcahaeoindris. There are far better sources to discuss the timeline (as you suggest was the point of using the reference in your edit summary), and the source wasn't even being used for that. It was used to support the hyperbolic statement that authorities had suggested masks were "dangerous", which is frankly WP:FRINGE in line with various anti-Fauci messaging. Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik, the article was used for reference to the political and social side and not for the medical and it is stating merely a fact.[1] Anyway, I understand your argument that writes could be understood as a non-neutral source as being zero-covid group and better source would be wise to be used.
Anyway, at the same time, the article is using happily uses plain opinion writings from the other side of the discussion too. For example professor Anders Björkman was one of the health professionals publicly saying in March 2020 that Sweden should not introduce lockdown ... School children are not the ones who make the difference, and you can keep the restaurants open, but perhaps forbid the 60+ or 70+ from attending. ... having the virus a little bit more active in younger people is not big harm and you develop herd immunity ... .[2]. It didn't clearly work like that (per excess deaths in 2020) and in global context Björkmans ideas are fringe and it should be said in the article. --Zache (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should use the same measure both ways, and that there may be need for trimming on that issue as well. However, a difference could be that the context is more clear - that it is from Björkman and is an opinion (there is also a question about when the opinion was stated - which matters for whether we can call it fringe). The major issue here is using something by Vetenskapsforum Covid-19 merely for reference when there should be no issue finding a better reference for that statement, seeing as both Folkhälsomyndigheten and the Corona Commission have decent timelines. As for how VetCov-19's opinion should be discussed, I think it is already clearly described in the part about the DN-debatt op-ed which they published in March 2020. I don't think it is useful to state the VetCov "interpreted the communication surrounding masks to imply that their use could be dangerous". That statement could be sourced to the Humanities paper, and is fine for Wikipedia's voice, however it doesn't strike me as WP:DUE. Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking to the talk page @Distrait cognizance:. The article in Humanities and Social Sciences is still a WP:RS as it is a peer-reviewed article, and also a secondary-source review article, and even if one or two of its interpretations are controversial it provides a reasonable summary and review of the policies, and is certainly more reliable and deserving of more weight than a lot of the WP:MEDPOP used as sources in the article at present. It is still an improvement over journalistic or popular media sources.
Do you have any sources to support your issues with the article? I understand that it is recent so there will perhaps be further reviews or responses in time. I agree that of course, a WP:MEDRS would be better, and there are articles in the BMJ and of course the Corona Commission can be used instead. However, I object that it be removed altogether, as it still provides a high-level summary in a peer-reviewed source, but thanks for pointing out that there could be some issues with it and that care should be taken that if used it should be covered with a neutral WP:POV. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would thank you for reading what had already been written here, before directing others to discuss. The article in question is new, and has not been responded to. However, there is sufficient material to without doubt state that Vetenskapsforum Covid-19, which these authors represent is a WP:FRINGE organization. It is therefore wildly inappropriate to use the article to reference anything. Additionally, what you readded was false, because the national recommendation for using masks in public transport came several weeks later.
That it ostensibly provides a summary does not justify referencing it impartially in face of the severe issues that exist in referencing a fringe anti-government group - especially when there are other better sources abound. If it is to be referenced at all it should be as the opinion piece it is, with reference to who wrote it. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, but frankly we should await secondary sources commenting on it to establish that mention of it is WP:DUE. Distrait cognizance (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Distrait cognizance:. No worries on the national recommendations date, to be honest this is the kind of information that this article currently lacks so thanks for correcting that.
Is there actually material to suggest that Vetenskapsforum Covid-19 is a fringe organisation, as you say? Just because they are critical of the government's policies does not make them automatically make them a fringe group, as a flat-earth society or COVID-denier group would be. Reliable, medical, mainstream sources like The BMJ and Science have quoted members and given WP:DUE weight to their views. Also, including the article you have taken issue with is not actually "referencing a fringe anti-government group" (i.e. their website or a press release), nor is it an "opinion piece"; it is a peer-reviewed journal article that does not even mention the group at all or even any conflicts of interests. Just my thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In all author affiliations they reference the group.
As for it being fringe, that is down to the definition in WP:FRINGE, and not a specific source but rather a totality of all coverage, including that coverage which you reference (although it is quite mildly worded). They certainly fulfill the criteria of ascribing to the first sentence of WP:FRINGE:

[An] idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.

As such, it follows:

If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't reference their criticism, or that we are currently referencing it unduly, but to use their sources and descriptions for anything beyond their views is problematic.
(Also of note that Joacim Rocklöv who is interviewed in the BMJ left the group as they turned more fringe, and pretty much only participated in that early 2020 op-ed, see https://vetcov19.se/om-oss/styrgrupp/ )
Within the Swedish media climate, all of this is very complicated and infected, and it is simply best to avoid referencing their work in WP:VOICE. Their article at Vetenskapsforum COVID-19 can certainly be expanded, but I am not enticed to do so at the moment and it would certainly need Swedish sources. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I wasn't aware of their English name. Thanks for elaborating. I'm not sure, at least from the English coverage I have read (I cannot read Swedish), that this is still encompassed under WP:FRINGE.
The Swedish government's response, at least according to international scholarship on COVID-19 prevention, is not one that was widely adopted or supported elsewhere, and therefore if what the group advocates for is that the country should have adopted more stringent public health measures, that is hardly fringe as (for example) the Corona Commission more or less concluded the same thing. Scientific advisors in most other countries also advocated for more stringent measures. Sweden is an exception in international scholarship. I cannot speak for what is in the Swedish media climate though, and have no idea from what I've read how or if the group "turned more fringe" later on, so if there is context I am missing about this it would be interesting to hear more. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet study[edit]

Lancet's study[3] for excess deaths is not good for estimating excess in nordic countries as the numbers don't match with numbers actually realized. For example,

  • Sweden's estimation is 18100 additional deaths for 2020 and 2021, but if look at what a rough number of additional deaths could be it would be something between 7000 and 8000. (per statistic and eurostats 7.7% excess for 2020 and zero excess for 2021),
  • Finland, the excess is in the study 8780 for 2020 and 2021. The realized excess is somewhere between 3000 and 3500 without any age group normalization per Eurostat. If we do age group normalization, then excess deaths in Finland were more or less zero for 2020 and only 518 in 2021. (per [4] for trend) and [5] for 518 and explanation)

So in both cases study's statistical model estimation is more than double compared to the realized ones. --Zache (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In plain english https://covid19.healthdata.org models. It seems. --Zache (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we getting this statement? We should certainly reference any potentially valid criticism of this study, but it was performed by the very main-stream Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and published in the highly prestigious journal The Lancet. The last sentence in WP:MEDASSESS makes it quite clear how we should treat this at the present. Distrait cognizance (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a statement for that I say that the excess of death numbers from the study (defined as in study: Excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic, defined as the net difference between the number of deaths during the pandemic (measured by observed or estimated all-cause mortality) and the number of deaths that would be expected on the basis of past trends in all-cause mortality, is therefore a crucial measure of the true toll of the COVID-19 pandemic.) are impossible?
It is my own statement and based directly on the fact that if we believe yearly death statistics from Finland or Sweden then there is no surplus in deaths to make the numbers from the study possible. However, I am not sure if the makers of the study really claim that their numbers are anything other than their best effort to make forecasts and they likely know the limits of their modeling. In any case here is some refs for the current article [6], [7] -- Zache (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is WP:Original research and, while interesting, not allowed on Wikipedia. As for the sources, the first is a blog and not an WP:RS, and in the second, which is a News Feature from Nature (can be RS, although not MEDRS), I don't see how it supports your statement. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your ordering countries by lancet study is WP:Original research and pulling 7.7% from thin air :) -- Zache (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non peer reviewed article about excess: Estimates of excess mortality for the five Nordic countries during the Covid-19 pandemic 2020-2021. As it is not yet peer-reviewed it is not good for the source, but maybe it is still interesting for reading about the lancet study's problems. --Zache (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article length[edit]

I think the easiest way to deal with this would be to solve the longstanding WP:DUPLICATE issue with Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and move most of the "Responses" section from this article to there, leaving only a brief summary or an excerpt in this article. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

go for it. The page is way too big in terms of kilobytes so it will benefit for splitting. -- Zache (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved most of it. Not sure what to do with the rest of it, as may take more time to integrate what's left into the other article. Would be good to then replace it with an excerpt of the lead section. Anyone else want to try and do the rest? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden&oldid=1212744617"