I’m getting that number from your post. The .01% difference between Sweden and Denmark is what is currently demonstrable. Everything else is speculation as far as Sweden being correct or incorrect in their course of action. Speaking of apples to apples, comparing the daily death rate of Covid to the daily death rate from other causes is misleading, since the covid number is limited by the maximum number of people that can get infected (anywhere from 50% to 90% of the population before herd immunity is likely to kick in.) that number stays the same whether it takes 20 days or 300 days to maximum spread . Contrast that with the economic and other impact mentioned above which will be felt over the course of several months to perhaps several years depending on the length of the recovery. That total mortality impact number would be the apples to apples comparison, not the daily rate.
What those numbers actually turn out to be going forward is anybody’s guess. If the California study that shows actual asymptomatic infection rates are 50 to 85 times the official numbers is correct, then the mortality rate is far lower then the official tally would indicate, and the numbers in Sweden should end up reflecting that. If the mortality rate is actually on the high end then that would be the number to work off of. There’s no way to know that yet, and the contrast between Sweden and Denmark so far does not provide the answer.
1- Where is there a .01% difference? In which category?
2- The study actually showed between a 28-55x increase, and serious concerns have been raised about the study, considering people with symptoms were much more likely to want to get tested and therefore respond to Facebook ads.Wasn’t a randomly conducted trial at all. Random is walking up to people on the street.
You’re also discounting the fact that all official numbers of mortality rates do take into consideration that the majority of people positive have not been tested, they don’t use positives/deaths as the n/d or we would be looking at reported mortality rates of 7% worldwide
3- Again, we don’t have the benefit of hindsight. We have the benefit of empirical data driven choices. What if in hindsight it turned out (or actually turns out) to be more deadly? There’s no reason it couldn’t/can’t turn out that way, as many pandemics in the past have. It’s reckless and irrational to bet a massive amount of lives on a poorly grounded theory.