During the COVID-19 pandemic, Denmark and Sweden took very different approaches. While Denmark imposed mask mandates, closed schools and repeatedly closed so-called ‘non-essential’ businesses, Sweden imposed hardly any all-encompassing restrictions. Lockdown proponents have accused the Swedish authorities of recklessness and claimed their approach has led to an unnecessary death toll.
But now the numbers are out, and according to two Danish professors, Christian Kanstrup Holm, a 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 8th, excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 was in fact the same in both countries.
In Denmark, harsh restrictions were justified by the need to prevent the breakdown of the healthcare system and the public has generally accepted this justification. The professors’ conclusion however is that this justification does not hold: despite very few restrictions in Sweden, the Swedish healthcare system was never even close to breaking down.
In 2020 the Swedish certainly saw excess mortality while mortality in Denmark remained approximately the same as in previous years (see chart below). But in 2021 the situation is reversed, according to the data. The two professors also point out that in 2020 there was in fact no excess mortality in Sweden among those below the age of 75, which simply confirms how COVID-19 primarily attacks the oldest.
According to the models used to justify harsher restrictions in Denmark, about 30,000 people were expected to have died had Sweden’s strategy been followed. But according to the data, the excess mortality in Sweden over the two years was around 6,000 and in Denmark 3,000, which amounts to the same percentage as the Danish population is about half the Swedish. Thus, the models were off by around 90%. It might be added that this year we see continued excess mortality in Denmark well above that in Sweden (though not all the excess mortality is with COVID-19).
“It often happens,” the authors say, “that individuals, groups or even whole populations get caught in false dichotomies. Those are commonly based on powerful anecdotes and lead to a general acceptance of the validity of one or more claims, which do not stand up to scrutiny.“ While some false beliefs may be harmless, “they can also persist for a long time, even if they have serious negative consequences, both for individuals and whole populations“.
They urge the authorities to make sure that in the future all consequences, including negative effects of restrictions on public health, psychological well-being, education and the economy be considered. For this to happen “it is crucial to have the courage to debate and analyse”.
Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is an economist who lives in Iceland. Find him on his Substack page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If end of life care was available at high level to all who need it then the bill should be unnecessary but sadly the care is pretty variable, certainly doesn’t achieve pain free deaths and is thus necessary. I have experience of people in this situation. I will not justify my view as it should be a personal decision but I would welcome the opportunity if I ever face this.
The medical professions have been extra-judicially killing people for a very long time. I watched this happen in an hospice to a terminally ill patient. It is done by sedation and denial of water. Death takes a day or so. Nothing I could do about it. Metastatic cancer spreading to the brain.
Quite the ethical dilemma similar to the abortion debate in rape and incest cases.
When I first read the protections proposed, my fears about this Bill were assuaged, but on reflection, it seemed to me that these are there to ram the Bill through Parliament and would quickly disappear. This was certainly the case with abortion where the current availability is nothing like the original proposers planned.
A very complicated and sad topic, but as long as the person who wants to shorten their life is of sound mind when the decision is made and no one is forced to perform anything against their will i.e. no doctor is forced to perform the act and the patient is not coerced, it is frankly no one else’s business. Why should someone be trapped in a life of Hell, when they don’t want to be anymore, yet have no means to do it themselves, just to please other people that they don’t know. They will obviously have discussed it with the ones that they love, the decision won’t have been taken likely – probably over the course many months or years and it doesn’t belittle their life. It is their life.
Just as you can opt out of organ donation and you can sign DNRs, why can’t we have a decision on our medical records, that is updated quite frequently, saying when and whether we would want to be assisted. Yes, I know it is open to abuse, but there are ways to make it harder to do that e.g. the form must be signed in person and by hand and witnessed and counter signed by 2 or 3 other people, chosen by the patient, all of whom are consulted when/if the time arrives, to check that they did indeed sign it.
There needs to be a way of allowing this, while protecting the vulnerable from coercion or decisions being taken without the knowledge of the patient or family members, as was the case with DNRs during the alleged ‘pandemic’.
I find this topic is similar to the abortion topic in that certain people have a very overly simplistic, black and white, rigid view on both, usually without ever having any firsthand experience in these particular areas. Well I’ve firsthand experience in both, having worked on a women’s ward ( gynae and breast surgery ) and also in the community with people suffering from MS, MND and those who became quadriplegic due to spinal chord injury. I won’t turn this into an essay but all I’ll say is if people could only reserve judgement until they’ve walked a mile in other people’s shoes, so to speak, then I’m very confident they’d take a different view of things.
So I quite agree, and frankly, people should be treat with dignity and their wishes ( as long as of sound mind ) should be respected. It should be dealt with on a case by case basis because what’s manageable for one person may be intolerable for another with the exact same condition. People are so sanctimonious and quick to judge but I say to hell with them, it’s none of their damn business. And I agree with your last paragraph because the trouble is, this euthanasia/assisted suicide topic has undoubtedly been abused in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands. An ethical minefield.
And what is the guarantee that the suicide topic won’t be abused here?
What percentage of abortions are really carried out for compelling medical reasons? A few percent?
(Asking as a father of a totally unplanned but very happy 27 year old young man.)
To be clear, both abortion and euthanasia should come with strict criteria. The problem is those strict criteria seem to go out the window. For instance, abortion should have a cut off point, such as 12 weeks. It certainly should not be left until the foetus is viable. No female does not know she’s possibly pregnant and should perform a test at the 3 month mark. Anything after that, especially when the foetus is more advanced, should only be performed if serious abnormalities have been detected and it’s advised by the doctor or wished by the parents. Bringing a baby into the world which is profoundly disabled, will have a shortened lifespan with a very poor quality of life, is not for everybody. This is where these “pro-lifers” have a very cut and dried, unrealistic and naive view, in my opinion.
As for euthanasia, what has already been mentioned above. If somebody’s of sound mind then their wishes should be recorded so everything’s done lawfully, like a living will with the relevant professionals present, no spouse should be getting arrested for manslaughter if they are asked to end the suffering of their partner ( who would do it themselves if they possibly could ) and people should have the option of dying with dignity. I’m afraid opioids will only get you so far, in terms of alleviating physical pain. As anyone who’s cared for people with terminal cancer will attest to.
“Bringing a baby into the world which is profoundly disabled, will have a shortened lifespan with a very poor quality of life, is not for everybody.”
OK, fair enough. But let’s go back to my original question: and what percentage of pregnancies meet those criteria?
Why are you expecting me to have that information? Can’t you research the answer for yourself?
I’m not trying to be provocative. I asked because you told us that you had firsthand experience, having worked on a women’s ward. So I was interested to know your opinion.
Have I researched the answer? Yes. I was told that in only about 1 to 2% of cases are pregnancies terminated for reasons of abnormalities, etc. The rest is for convenience.
Ah so you asked me a question you already knew the answer to. Was that supposed to be some “Gotcha” moment?
I’ve already made my views on both subjects as clear as I possibly can so I’m not sure what good labouring the point would do. It just irks me when self-righteous people sit casting judgement on others without knowing the personal circumstances or reasons of the individual concerned, and that applies to both of the aforementioned topics.
Certainly not.
The statistics I heard might have come from a biased source and I was genuinely interested in your personal opinion.
I absolutely did not mean it as a “gotcha” moment. I respect your views.
No worries. It’s 15+ years since I worked in that field so I couldn’t possibly recall that specific info, to be honest. But I do feel strongly the time limit should be lowered significantly from what it currently stands at. Babies have the possibility of surviving if born prematurely at 23 or 24 weeks and the vast majority of females will get signs and take a test very early on, especially if their period is late. And even without regular periods there are, of course, other physiological signs your body gives to let you know you’ve conceived, so my sympathies can only extend so far, then it’s a case of taking personal responsibility. This very subject will be even more pertinent in a few years when my daughter reaches 16yrs, which I’d rather not think about for now.
I’m not sure it is fair enough. Isn’t a short, poor quality of life, better than no life at all? You could argue, and it’s an argument I would lean towards, that life begins at conception. Whatever the difficulties, impracticalities and morals associated with bringing up a severely disabled child, the fact remains that the potential for any life at all is being eliminated when a foetus / embryo is aborted at any stage of pregnancy. It is preventing a process from unfolding that would, absent a proactive procedural intervention, naturally lead to a new-born infant.
I’m not sure whether or not I’m in favour of assisted suicide specifically, but one thing that a patient should be allowed is the consenting withdrawal of treatment, if desired. This is a passive allowing of the natural ending of life, and it is also consenting. Abortion on the other hand is neither: The foetus has no say in whether he/she gets a shot at life. And the process is also proactive, and requires a specific termination procedure, therefore is morally a different ballgame entirely.
In principle, I would like the option of an assisted death. However, the article makes it clear that any safeguards put in place, can be dismantled with ease. This is problematical. The choice appears to be either a blanket ban on assisted death, or acceptance that a limited criteria for assisted death, will inevitable expand into a far wider set of criteria.
Unless the proposed legislation includes indefeasible rights that are incapable of being made void by a future parliament.
Let’s have no illusions.
The state would really like to kill you once you’re old and frail.
It would save a lot of money.
Just keep that in mind for a minute and ask yourself where this is all going.
There will be cast iron safeguards. Oh yes, like with the Covid jabs. Safe and effective.
The End of Life “care” PATHWAYS NG163 correspond with the mortality spike in April 2020. It was also a useful tool for the BBC to publish 24/7 fear porn that kept up compliance.
No question.
Assisted dying wouldn’t even be a point of discussion if the young heavily outnumbered the old that needed caring for.
But in a world soon to come where it’s the other way around and the old massively outnumber the young, for many if not most there will two options: assisted dying or dying in neglect.
That is until they produce nurse robots.
In the not too distant future when you go to your GP with some long term problem (and, let’s face it, who is completely healthy at retirement age?), he will look at your notes and say, “hmm, yes, I see, what is your end of life plan?” rather than try to make you feel better.
I can see both sides. Five Live a lady made the point that when terminally ill, you have gone pretty much full circle into the state of being a baby again regarding needing assistance in doing almost everything. No self respecting person should have to, or want to go through that humiliation. But at the same time, after 2020 it gives those that were paying attention (people on here) a darker perspective where the slippery slope argument holds weight. Canada is a prime example — a woman askes for a stairlift, and they offer to bump her off instead.
It depends on who you regard as the basic unit of society, individuals or the ‘collective’.
…even if it means that many people are obliged to live in great pain so that ‘the State’ may have clean hands?
Yes, the slippery slope is a risk, but not stepping out also carries a great risk too.
It is a convenient myth (convenient for the proponents of euthanasia) that euthanasia (in its various forms and incarnations) is painless and dignified.
There is absolutely no evidence to show that it is either.
But there is plenty of evidence to show that it is neither.
Euthanasia does not provide the painless, peaceful death which its advocates claim it to be. There is no perfect way for the government to kill people. As Samuel Beckett said: “Even death is unreliable.”
The above text was taken by Vernon Coleman from a book written by Jack King. Vernon Coleman has written several articles on the matter in The Exposé (e.g. https://expose-news.com/2024/10/31/euthanasia-is-not-painless-peaceful-and-dignified/, https://expose-news.com/2024/11/01/i-have-written-to-my-mp/), pointing out that nobody knows how a person feels when given a fatal medicine, that many people do not react as expected and some have even survived for days afterwards. There was apparently one case where a doctor ultimately used a pillow to suffocate a person who did not die as expected.
I believe euthanasia is also a matter espoused by countries with publicly funded health care systems. If you are fortunate enough to live in a country where you are required to have a private health insurance, doctors do their utmost to keep you alive simply because the longer you live, the more money they will earn from you. If, on the other hand, you have an NHS-type system …
This woman has no idea what it must be like to be living a life of hopelessness.
Google Dr Elizabeth Evans and you find that “her strong Christian faith” is what motivates her. She is seeking to impose her religious views on others, whilst professing to support medical freedom – what a hypocrite.
It is a complete myth that palliative care can make every medical condition bearable, and for the cases where it cannot, the sufferers should have the freedom to request a hastening of their death.
I agree with this article, however, no sensible person believes that the state has their best interests at heart. The opposite is true. Similarly, it is now obvious that the medical profession has also been corrupted. Dark times lie ahead.
As a veterinary surgeon I have performed euthanasia many times. It is a peaceful process.
However, I am completely opposed to this bill. The danger of coercion or people agreeing to euthanasia because they are being made to feel a burden is real. Just look at the Covid years and you have a prime example of what could happen.
Death is part of life and we should be providing good, compassionate care, not going down this slippery slope of euthanasia.
Look at what is happening now. People desiring bodily autonomy who are suffering appallingly and think death is preferable are basically being told to get on with it. That’s not a compassionate approach. We need to deal with the reality that “good compassionate care” is simply not available or realistic for many and may never be, given the state of our economy. Covid authoritarianism was despicable. Telling chronically suffering people that they have no right to exercise the right to die is also despicable state overreach.
I hear you. I am worried about the reasons behind choosing to die. And the reasons can be manipulated. So it is not straightforward in quite a few cases.
Maybe we should also look at medical interventions. Do we interfere too much? Keeping people alive without good quality of life?
I remember a lecture by a human transfusion expert. The 80 year old patient in that case developed a heart condition which needed surgery and the expert was asked by the cardiology team if the patient could survive the surgery. He rightly called the whole team together to discuss if it was really in the best interest of that patient to proceed with surgery.
So many angles to this debate.
Respect for your views
I think if the law changes it should follow careful deliberation and informed debate and hopefully good considered legislation will follow. Whatever the concerns, it simply cannot be right that a blanket refusal to allow autonomous adults their right to chose bodily autonomy continues. Was the 80 year old you mention included in the discussion? I hope so!
Ironic that the Medical Freedom Alliance advocates for informed consent and bodily autonomy. Palliative Care is a fluffy and cosy term which belies the reality behind what is possible when caring for the dying. I’ve nursed people who’ve died with dignity, relatives around the bed and relatively pain free courtesy of a morphine pump or similar. I’ve also nursed people unfortunate enough to have a long lingering slide into loss of consciousness with no hope of recovery. As death is inevitable, there’s no feeding tube and no IV fluids. Tissues inevitably break down, even with good nursing care. Basically they slowly rot to death, a process which can take a surprising number of days. An alternative scenario might be long term lung disease, where every task is accompanied by a feeling of desperate suffocation, knowing that tomorrow and all the days after will present you with the same frightening exhausting miserable existence. If a lucid adult feels that is the point where death would be a welcome relief, then it should be their right to to say so, and to expect assistance from a caring – not censorious – professional.