One thing that many people here in Scandinavia don't understand is 'why' the virus is happening the way it is.

Let me explain by comparing Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. (well, mostly Denmark and Sweden)
When the virus hit Scandinavia (almost simultaneously), both Norway and Denmark imposed a lockdown, whereas Sweden had a more 'casual approach. Sweden did add some restrictions but to a much less degree.

The effect was very clear.
However, what happened then in Denmark was that, as we got the virus under control, we started reducing the restrictions more and more ... so much in fact that we ended up with fewer restrictions than in Sweden.
The reason for this was due to us having several months with almost no infections, and we had days with no deaths. In the region I live in, we have more than two weeks without a single death.

So... we kept easing up the restrictions while Sweden was still trying to catch up.
And it really did look like everything was under control.

The problem was that the graph in the previous tweet is slightly misleading. Because when you instead look at the 'active number of cases', we see that we never got below 500 active cases.
In other words, we had minimized the virus, but it was still very much part of society. 500 known cases + whatever number that is unknown ... that's a huge amount potential cases of future infections.

And this was exactly what happened.
Because the numbers were so low, people stopped caring. People started going back to their old lives, they had parties (many of them), the bars and restaurants were full again of people wanting to go out.

And this was the perfect environment for the virus to come back.
And so, in Denmark and Norway, after things going so well, we eased up too much, and the virus came back. But in Denmark, we keep saying "we got under control", and the newspapers kept reporting that "there is nothing to worry about" ... and yet, look at this graph.
Meanwhile, in Sweden, they had finally, kind of, caught up. They are still not even close to where we were three months ago. In fact, Sweden's numbers today is where we were in back in May.

So, while Denmark is heading into its second wave, Sweden is just now ending its first.
So, what is Sweden doing now? Well, they are making exactly the same mistake as we made here in Denmark a month ago. They have started easing up restrictions, allowing more people to gather in larger and larger groups.
So... here is my very simple question for you. If easing up restriction in Denmark caused the virus to come back and start a second wave ... what would you expect to happen in Sweden now that they are doing the same?
Let me give you a hint. Here is a graph for Sweden of the COVID cases per day. As you can see, they have not stopped the virus. Like Denmark, they have merely reduced it to a certain level ... but it persistently keeps spreading in the country.
So, again, what do you think will happen now that Sweden is starting to ease restrictions? (like Denmark did three months ago)

Do you think the virus will go away, even though more people are now closer together? ...or... do you think it will come back, like it did in Denmark?
For what possible reason should we believe that 'Sweden is winning?'

There is nothing in the data that would indicate that Sweden is at a better place now than what we were here in Denmark three months ago.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Baekdal

Thomas Baekdal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @baekdal

22 Oct
For f... sake, newspapers. You seriously need to start thinking about what impact your reporting has on the public.

Take this headline. Sounds pretty bad, right?

So what impact will this have when people see this? Well, it's obvious. You are fueling the anti-vaxxers. Right?!
Well, then you read the article, and it says this:
And then at the bottom of the article, it says this:
Read 13 tweets
21 Oct
No they are not. If they were actually important to you, you would not show us this. GDPR came into effect on May 28, 2018 ... so it's pretty clear that this is not a priority for you at all.
Note to US publishers. I can understand why, as a local publisher in the US, that you don't want to deal with the cost and complication of implementing European legislation for an audience that is outside your market. I get that.

But then just say that. Don't lie to me.
What seriously annoys me as a media analyst is when publishers behave dishonestly. You say you care about my privacy, but you are asking me to give it up. That's not caring.

You say I'm important to you, but your actions say otherwise.
Read 5 tweets
20 Oct
One thing I hate is how publishers try to twist GDPR into meaning something different, when the actual law is extremely clear.

Here is how 'consent' is defined.

So no, you cannot say: "By continuing to use our site you will automatically consent." That is simply not a thing.
It's the same about controllers vs processors. It's the data controller that people give consent to, and the processors act on behalf of that controller. What this means is that no processor can ever claim to have the right to do something on another site without a new consent.
If you give your consent to tracking on one newspaper to include FB tracking, then FB cannot claim to have the right to track someone on another site, arguing that you already gave your consent once. People didn't give their consent to FB. They gave it to the newspaper.
Read 4 tweets
20 Oct
In a matter of minutes?!? ... okay. Wouldn't that depend on the traffic levels?
BTW: Fun side note: Whenever you do A/B testing, make sure you also do a A/A testing to see if the effect is actually real.

Let me explain:
One of the big flaws of an A/B testing is that it may not tell you what it think it tells you. Instead, the result you see might be entirely depended on other factors.

For instance, imagine you do a A/B test like this. Clearly 'option A' performed a lot better .. right?
Read 5 tweets
20 Oct
One thing I have called for repeatedly this year is for newspapers to think more about 'cause and effect'. Meaning if you report something in one way, what bad effects might that cause?

[thread]
One example is the R number used to identify whether infections are rising or not.

For instance, here is the UK: gov.uk/guidance/the-r…

What we report is this:

R > 1: The situation is getting worse
R = 1: The situation is stable
R < 1: The situation is getting better
What's wrong with this, you ask? Well, the problem is when R = 1.

This is the situation we currently have here in Denmark. After a period of massive increase (R > 1), we have now ended up with a similar level of new infections per day.

But look at where that is.
Read 10 tweets
20 Oct
One thing I think we need to stop doing as the press is to approach every story from an adversarial perspective.

Think about this pandemic. The 'enemy' is the virus, and the public, the authorities, the health experts, and also the press ... we are all on the same side.

1/4
But in the press, our journalistic focus has often made everyone the enemy of everyone else. So whenever one group says something, you immediately go out and interview someone who can contradict them.

This is really not helpful.
And this is true for most stories. Think about climate change and how we have spent ten years focusing on how to argue about it.

It's not a useful way to do journalism.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!