Skip to main content

South Dakota, Sweden are Failures--Compared to What?

The Badlands of South Dakota.


An article today in The Spectator (US and UK) decries the lack of regulations in South Dakota to deal with the coronavirus, calling it a "failed experiment." The author compares South Dakota's response, or lack of it, to Sweden--and then calls Sweden a failure, too. From this, he concludes that lack of coronavirus regulation allows rampant spreading of the disease, and implies that strict regulation controls it. Does it really--and are those devil-may-care Swedes and South Dakotans about to drop like flies? Let's look at their numbers and compare them not to perfection, but to some places that have had strict regulations to get an idea how well the regulations might be working. The article doesn't specify which measures should be mandated, so let's assume lockdowns. 

I'll avoid using out-of-the-way places and epicenters, since they would have low or high numbers no matter what they did. And since there's been so much variation in how deaths are reported and what constitutes a case, and since lockdowns themselves have effects, I'm going to look at excess deaths: deaths at a number above what would normally be expected for the time of year. Here's South Dakota's excess deaths from the CDC. (Click graphics to enlarge.)


The article also mentions North Dakota's similar lack of regulations, and they have had a spike in excess deaths. 


What about other states that have not issued many regulations? South Dakota's neighbor Iowa never issued a stay at home order and had few closures. They have had some excess deaths, but not a spike in them.


Now let's look at states that took a hard line: Michigan, Pennsylvania and California. These states are no longer under strict lockdowns, as those have been voided in court. Here's Michigan: 




Pennsylvania:




California: 



I've also looked at several states plus New York City and Washington DC. There are three common patterns: a big spike in excess deaths followed by few or no excess deaths (like Michigan and Pennsylvania), a middling number of excess deaths starting in spring and continuing to the present (like Iowa), and sudden surges (like the Dakotas). 

In terms of excess deaths per million population, I'll be darned if I can see many patterns--and I made a list with every state. The most far-flung states (plus Puerto Rico) had among the lowest numbers; the least healthy and some small states near the epicenter of New York City had among the highest. South Dakota is about halfway in the middle. Here are the results for our six states; you can see the whole list here


Based on excess deaths per million, South Dakota isn't a failure, being in the middle of the pack. What about Sweden--and South Korea, for that matter, which also didn't have lockdowns, but did take less-strict measures?


Sweden spiked, then went into negative territory. South Korea never saw a big spike and COVID daily deaths remain in single digits--and it's a crowded country of over fifty million people. Their low numbers might have to do with low levels of diabetes and overweight, two common factors in COVID deaths, and their experience dealing with epidemics. How do these countries compare to others that had strict lockdowns--again, ignoring epicenters and out-of-the-way places?

Belgium is back in strict lockdown; France even makes you fill out a form to leave your house. Both of these countries had lockdowns earlier in the year, and they didn't prevent a second wave of excess deaths.


First, note that this graph goes up to 100%, whereas the previous one showing Sweden and South Korea goes up to only 40%. France doesn't look bad for the summer, but they've had a resurgence in daily COVID deaths for the past month.

In fairness, Sweden is a somewhat out-of-the-way place and South Korea has less diabesity and more experience controlling epidemics. And we don't know how the other countries would have done without strict measures, nor are we at the end of the pandemic. So what can we figure out from these charts? 

  • If Sweden is an indication, a peak in excess deaths can sharply decline without a lockdown. 
  • Strict lockdowns haven't prevented second waves of excess deaths in France and Belgium. 
  • Michigan and Pennsylvania, which have have already had a sharp spike in excess deaths, haven't seen a second one (so far) with lockdowns off the table.

When someone says something is a failure, we need to ask, compared to what? Several places with strict lockdowns had spikes in excess deaths and two had second waves to boot. Quarantines for healthy people are novel and have no track record. There's no science behind them, which the let's-follow-the-science crowd keeps ignoring. If we're really following the science, we need to acknowledge that so far, we can't point to lockdowns as a reliable way of preventing excess deaths.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What $115 Buys--Junk Food vs. Real Food

A lady recently went off about how little food $115 buys, complaining that the pile of (mostly) junk food she bought wouldn't make a week's worth of lunches and snacks for her children. Sad to say, but this looks like what I see in a lot of grocery carts.  Fat pic.twitter.com/qbM23ydaOq — shellshock (@shellshockkk) March 7, 2025 Coincidentally, I paid almost exactly the same amount today on groceries that would make lots of healthy lunches. It's filling food that won't leave you hungry every few hours for snacks. If we want to make America healthy again, this is the way.  

Celebrities Shilling for Big Soda

There's a push in Washington and ten states to ban soda (and other junk food) from SNAP, a program for low-income people to buy groceries. This seems like a no-brainer: the N in SNAP stands for nutrition, and soda doesn't have nutrients. It's liquid sugar, the last thing we need in a country full of diabetics. People can drink water for virtually nothing and save their SNAP money for actual food. Yet a number of posts from otherwise sensible accounts have opposed this.  Reporter Nick Sorter says that a company called Influenceable has been paying influencers to post these opinions. (Click on the link for the full thread.) 🚨🧵 EXPOSED: “INFLUENCEABLE” — The company cutting Big Checks to “influencers” on behalf of Big Soda Over the past 48 hours, several large supposedly MAGA-aligned “influencers” posted almost identical talking points fed to them, convincing you MAHA was out of line for not… pic.twitter.com/PpPwH9lHGe — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) March 22, 2025 Sorter adds...

$17/pound chips! Real food is cheaper

 My latest video on YouTube: Real food is generally cheaper than junk food--the pictures prove it. I took these at Kroger and from their website in March 2025. Prices are either straight from the tags or calculated based on product weight.  Music: On We Go (ClipChamp)  First photo by AS Photography: https://www.pexels.com/photo/vegetables-stall-868110/

1972: Carole King, M*A*S*H and...Food for 2014?

I feel well enough to try Atkins induction again. The palpitations are gone, even without taking potassium. My energy level is back to normal--no more trucking on the treadmill early in the morning  to burn off nervous energy or emergency meat, cheese and mineral water stops after yoga. It's back to lounging around to Chopin and Debussy in the morning and stopping at the wine bar for pleasure. I'm using the original Atkins book: Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution from 1972. While looking in the book for a way to make gelatin (which is allowed on induction, but Jello(TM) and products like it have questionable ingredients), I felt the earth move under my feet : those recipes from 42 years ago look delicious and they're mostly real food. It makes sense, though: the cooks who wrote the recipes probably didn't have had a palette used to low-fat food full of added sugar or a bag of tricks to make low-fat food edible. Anyone who writes a recipe called "Cottage Cheese and...

Not Only Cheaper, But Easier

A while back, I wrote about saving money on break time coffee and snacks. I haven't done very well putting it into practice. But a post by James Clear today got me thinking about it again: Warren Buffett uses a two-list system to prioritize things. Check it out --and follow the instructions. Using Buffett's two-list system, two of the goals I ended up with were taking care of myself and saving $400 more per month than I already am. As I said, I've been wanting to save money, and the system made me really focus on this. I came up with 11 money-saving ideas, six of which had to do with food. Buying hamburger in bulk. Ranch Foods Direct sells one-pound packages of 80% lean pastured ground beef in bundles of 20 for a lot less than Whole Foods. Sprouts only carries super-lean beef that's grass-fed, and it's more expensive, too.  Not driving to Whole Foods. Whole Foods is out of my way, and saving a weekly trip saves gas. Coffee at home, tea at work. Tea is fr...