Why do some countries have noticeably more men than women, while others have the opposite pattern?

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins, shows which countries have male- or female-majority populations using World Population Review data on the number of males per 100 females.

While sex ratios at birth differ only slightly, demographic forces can produce striking imbalances over time.

Countries Where There Are More Men

Of the 233 countries and territories in the dataset, men outnumber women in just 33%.

Despite the smaller number of male-majority countries, there are roughly 42 million more men than women worldwide.

There are two main reasons for this.

• First, the Gulf states are the clearest outliers. Countries such as Qatar, the UAE, Oman, and Kuwait rely heavily on temporary migrant workers employed in construction, energy, and infrastructure, industries dominated by men. Because many of these workers arrive without their families, national gender balances become unusually skewed.

• Second, three of the world’s most populous countries, China, India, and the United States, all have more men than women. Although their ratios are less extreme, their large populations magnify the difference.

In India alone, a ratio of 106.3 men per 100 women translates into a male surplus of more than 40 million.

Countries Where There Are More Women

The largest concentration of female-majority countries is found across Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Former Soviet states account for seven of the 12 countries and territories with the lowest ratios of men to women.

Russia offers one of the region’s most prominent examples. Higher male mortality, shorter male life expectancy, historical wartime losses, and alcohol-related deaths all contribute to its ratio of 86.4 men per 100 women.

Why Sex Ratios Change Over Time

Sex ratios at birth naturally favor boys by a small margin, but populations rarely maintain that balance. Migration, life expectancy, war, public health, and economic opportunity can all reshape a country’s demographic profile over decades.

As these forces evolve, the map represents a snapshot rather than a permanent reality. Countries experiencing rapid immigration, population aging, conflict, or major improvements in healthcare may see their gender balance shift substantially from one generation to the next.

Via Remix News,

Influencer and model Jessica Goicoechea has posted a video on her social media channels in which she openly criticizes the insecurity she believes plagues Barcelona and details the personal measures she has taken to protect herself. In the clip, Goicoechea displays several security items she recently bought in Andorra, including 4 bottles of pepper sprays and a taser gun, which she describes as her “new essentials.”

The video ends with a direct message: “Now, I can go calmly through Barcelona.”

??? JUST IN: Spanish model Jessica Goicoechea shows off her 4 bottles of pepper spray and a Taser gun while speaking out against immigration.

“Now, I can go calmly through Barcelona,” she said.

Following the video’s viral spread, Goicoechea wrote a statement explaining that… pic.twitter.com/ATZYvfkOaX

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) July 13, 2026

The publication quickly sparked intense debate across social platforms. While some users criticized her for publicly showcasing self-defense weapons, many others – particularly women – expressed support and inquired about where similar products could be purchased. In response, Goicoechea stated that she is receiving “infinite messages” from women seeking ways to protect themselves. She defended her actions by saying that, given the current situation, she believes “if you don’t protect yourself, no one will.”

Following the video’s viral spread, Goicoechea followed up with a written statement. She explained that she had never wanted to enter debates about safety or immigration but felt compelled to speak out because conditions have deteriorated.

“I’m never going to shut up again,” she declared. The model described living in fear while walking the streets of Barcelona and highlighted what she called a daily increase in stabbings and shootings that she becomes aware of almost constantly.

In the same statement, Goicoechea emphasized that her concerns are not aimed at immigration in general but specifically at individuals who commit crimes. She pointed to recidivism, impunity, and insufficient controls on people with serious criminal records as the core issues.

“The problem is not where someone comes from, but how they behave,” she maintained.

Addressing comments under her video, Goicoechea responded to one follower who linked Barcelona’s rising crime to immigration by saying she “100% agrees.”

?? “They started hitting me in the stomach and in the face.”

A Polish model, attacked by a group of migrants in Milan, spoke to Polish media about her experience.

The attack only ended abruptly thanks to the heroics of an Italian man who intervened.

The report links the attack… pic.twitter.com/ln1Rds6mTN

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 9, 2026

“It all stems from political mistakes, regardless of the party’s political color, due to poor immigration planning,” read the comment she agreed with.

She later clarified that this agreement applied only to those who engage in criminal activity. She argued that “if you come to steal or kill, I prefer you be deported.”

Goicoechea reiterated that her goal is to call for improved street safety and a firmer response to crime. “I believe that demanding safe streets and firm laws against those who come to commit crimes is essential and common sense,” she concluded in the statement shared on her profiles.

????Poland is much safer than the US, says Polish-American supermodel Joanna Krupa.

She directly refers to the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, who was killed by a career criminal with 14 convictions.

“I certainly feel more secure in Poland than in the States.”… pic.twitter.com/eCGIieS5nG

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) September 23, 2025

Her comments arrive amid a series of violent incidents recorded across Catalonia in recent weeks, including approximately thirty firearms-related events, many concentrated in the Barcelona metropolitan area. These have been accompanied by frequent robberies and assaults that continue to affect both local residents and tourists, often generating significant public attention.

Other European models have delivered similar messages about crime concerns in the past, including Polish-American supermodel Joanna Krupa.

Read more here…

Authored by Alastair Crooke

When the US Navy, in co-ordination with Qatar and Oman, tried to slip a convoy of four vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, via Omani waters, last Tuesday night – rather than pass via Iran’s officially approved route – Trump may have imagined (or been told) that with the massive funeral for the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei under way, that Iran would not react as the US Navy attempted to force open an American corridor. Trump however, misread the Iranian jibe – Hormuz is its “atomic weapon.” Iran will not relinquish it.

Trump insists – in clear contradiction to the terms set out in paragraph five of the MoU – that Iran has no right to interfere with any ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Iran nonetheless is acting within the terms of the agreed de-escalation framework, and has warned repeatedly that it would strike any vessel circumventing the Iranian control mechanism.

Iran responded directly to Trump’s challenge to Iranian control of the Strait by striking two vessels with missiles and a third with an armed drone. A forth Qatari-owned tanker, laden with liquefied natural gas, was set ablaze, forcing its crew to abandon the stricken vessel.

These Iranian ripostes provoked Trump to order American air strikes against Iranian targets; to reimpose sanctions on the Islamic Republic’s oil exports; and to revoke the MoU framework he had signed with what he called the “Iranian scum” – thus ending the ceasefire. “We hit them hard last night,” Trump said at the NATO summit in Ankara. “We will probably hit them hard again tonight.”

Trump did hit Iran again Wednesday night – even though Iran had not attacked another vessel seeking to by-pass the Iranian corridor. In response, Iran launched ballistic missiles and drones at US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Muwaffaq Al-Salti airbase in Jordan.

Vice-President Vance is saying to Iran, “If you try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the American military will respond. It’s that simple” – i.e. Iran either keeps the Strait fully open to all, or the US will keep hitting it, as it did on Tuesday night.

Iran insists that it is the US that has violated the MoU and (via the spokesman for Iran’s Parliamentary National Security Committee) warns that further attacks by the US on Iran will be met by a comprehensive all-out surprise offensive by Iran – and potentially by other options too, such as an Iranian withdrawal from the NPT, changing the country’s nuclear doctrine, and closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait alongside the Strait of Hormuz.

So, Vice-President Vance is saying if Iran restricts Hormuz (i.e. it stays open to friendly states’ vessels) the US will escalate. And Iran is responding to this threat by warning that it will escalate militarily – two strikes for every one American strike – and that they may also turn to new doctrines of warfare.

Essentially, Trump has plunged into an escalatory trap, seemingly in part out of pique at his collapsing polls at home. He did, however, directly put himself in this situation by trying to “act cute” during the Khamenei funeral pre-occupations in order to try to gain a “quick win.”

How long will this escalatory episode last? Certainly, it will not lead to the opening of the Strait; nor bring a return of the status quo ante that preceded the war. As long as Iran maintains its ability to exert control over Hormuz, there is no basis to assume that the situation will return to what it was.

On the contrary, and more likely, the crisis will accelerate the onset of looming global economic crisis that could last until the economic pain becomes acute, as the drawdown on sour crude continues – and as the effects on the real economy in the West become visible.

With shortages of munitions and the drawdown on air assets from the Middle East already beginning, Trump probably lacks the wherewithal to go full “Iran War 3.0.”

The timeline to this new bout of low-intensity tit-for-tat therefore, is likely dictated by refinery inventories in the US; but also by the extent of the “hurt” being experienced by Trump back home in the context of his fading political prospects, but also by his dislike for any personal humiliation.

Where did this all go wrong? Possibly the crux of it derives from the moment that Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Sayyed Mojtaba, issued his statement that he had held a different view on the MoU to that of the negotiating team, but had agreed to proceed with it after receiving an assurance from the Iranian President that he would ensure and take into account Iran’s overarching principles in respect to relations with the US.

The Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei’s statement put on notice both the US – and the Iranian negotiators – that Iran’s approval of the MoU was no open mandate, but rather closely tied to the 10 principles originally enunciated by the new Supreme Leader.

At some point, the Iranian leadership seemingly came to the conclusion that Iran was being played by the US; that the MoU was a deception –

…and that the entirety of events since the announcement of the MoU reflected a US strategy based on the view that in the previous round of the war against Iran – [that the US and Israel] failed to achieve their objectives – necessitating a halt to the confrontation, albeit temporarily, in order to regroup and prepare “more thoroughly” for a new round when the right conditions arise.

This led to the Iranian reassessment that the Hormuz and Lebanon components constituted the vital leverage to engage in a new war as the West ramps up pressure as a holding strategy – whilst the US and Israel prepare for the next round of war.

The interim US strategy is no change to US-Israeli objectives, but rather an adjustment to their operational mechanisms to provide for certain compromises that Washington considers necessary (i.e. closer working with Turkey and via Erdogan to engage Syria’s Jolani) to reshuffle the Lebanon deck, and then to “assess how the cards lie,” as Vance outlined.

It is not certain that this new US policy will work. The world is changing rapidly. Their expected triumph of Israel over the Middle East has resulted in failure. Trump’s MoU ploy to open Hormuz likely will fail, too.

The connected war on Russia and the siege of China are faltering too – and Israel’s (until now unassailable) hold over the US is in question too. A senior US democrat, Rahm Emanuel, and potential 2028 US Democratic presidential candidate, spoke in Israel yesterday; he warned in no uncertain terms that Israel “has lost the world’s support, become a ‘regional pariah,’ [and that its] alliance with the US is ‘at a crossroads’.”

And finally, a “black swan” now can be observed swimming in increasingly sunlit waters – Eric Katz writing in Notus writes that, “a draft report inside the US Treasury Department is set to warn of the risks posed by the artificial intelligence market, likening key aspects of it to the dotcom bubble that upended the US economy when it burst in the early 2000s.”

Treasury analysts wrote –

Career Treasury analysts found that AI firms are more deeply entrenched in the US economy than their dotcom predecessors and pose significant risk to the entire system if financial conditions change, productivity goals are missed or various choke points stymie growth.

A downturn in the AI market would send shockwaves throughout the entire economic ecosystem.

A market downturn in the US – exacerbated by an energy crisis – could spell disaster for Trump’s midterm hopes.

China’s greatest military advantage may be its ability to convert its massive civilian manufacturing base into wartime production of low-cost, one-way attack drones modeled after Iran’s Shahed-136.

This is especially alarming because the U.S. defense industrial base is only beginning (read here) to prepare for a transition to wartime output, even as a global drone procurement race accelerates. Nation-states are set to stockpile millions of autonomous, low-cost weapons in the years ahead.

We have already shown readers how Chinese firms appear to be ramping up production of Shahed-style drones, with open-source footage from social media increasingly pointing to expanding production capacity.

Some scary stats on China’s militaro-industrail complex’s capacity:
– China casts more metal products than the next nine countries combined and >5× the US.
– Its shipbuilding capacity is ~200× the US (a total-capacity figure, not per-ship speed).
– It makes ~90% of the world’s… pic.twitter.com/RcxKN4SDZZ

— Léo (@LeoKharon) July 13, 2026

The latest finding centers on the drone’s powerplant: the Iranian MADO MD-550 engine, which is used throughout the Shahed family and in Russia’s Geran-2 variant. MD550-type engines are also being mass produced in China and widely advertised on Chinese e-commerce platforms, including Alibaba.

The problem is not that China manufactures small aviation engines; it is that commercially available, dual-use engines can be incorporated into Shahed-style drones with limited visibility into the final buyer or end use.

The United Nations has identified the Iranian MADO-550 as the engine used in the Shahed drone family, while the U.S. Treasury has said the sanctioned Oje Parvaz Mado Nafar Company (commonly known as Mado company). 

Chinese vendors on Alibaba advertise MD550-type UAV engines in large quantities, although the listings alone do not show any connection to a Chinese state weapons program.

More importantly, the Alibaba listings are evidence of commercial availability, not proof that Beijing is deliberately supplying one-way attack drone programs. However, the listings only highlight the erosion of the boundary between civilian manufacturing and weapons production.

The real threat is that long-range strike drones can increasingly be assembled from commercially produced parts at a scale traditional export-control systems were never designed to contain. This means Shahed-style systems are likely to proliferate far beyond nation-states, spreading to proxies, criminal networks, and other threat actors.

Like this: 

• Fiber-Optic Kamikaze Drone Found In Mexico Signals New Drone Threat South Of Border

Latest evidence:

• Why Is China Advertising Insane War Drones On Facebook

The question is no longer whether these drones will reach the West, but when.

Authored by J.B.Shurk via AmericanThinker.com,

As simmering conflicts between Western citizens and Western governments boil over the next few years, we must never forget how we got to this point: Elected officials and irremovable bureaucrats occupying permanent administrative roles have refused to respect the wishes of the citizens whom they ostensibly represent and serve.

From the United States to the United Kingdom, citizens have demanded that their governments secure national borders and end the steady flow of illegal aliens into their communities.  From France, the Netherlands, and Germany to Australia and New Zealand, citizens have demanded that their governments arrest and remove Islamic immigrants who are guilty of rape, murder, or other violent crimes.  With the exception of President Trump’s efforts to enforce immigration law and deport illegal alien criminals (despite formidable resistance from the courts, leftist NGOs, and Establishment politicians from both the Democrat and Republican Parties) in the United States, no Western official has done anything to remedy the scourge of unlawful mass invasion in a deliberate, meaningful, and effective way.  Instead, Western governments hide from their citizens the true number of illegal immigrants living among them.  Western governments hide from their citizens a full accounting of the crimes committed by foreign nationals who should never have been permitted entry in the first place.

Mass illegal immigration is not a new problem.  In the United States, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law in 1986.  Defended by both political parties as a way of combating illegal immigration while providing long-term lawbreakers legal status, it effectively awarded millions of foreign nationals amnesty.  Politicians convinced the American people to support this trade-off: In return for citizens’ reluctantly permitting the government to reward the unlawful behavior of foreign immigrants who had no right to reside in the United States, the government would protect citizens by cracking down on future illegal immigration and punishing businesses that hired illegal immigrant workers.  The U.S. government never lived up to its side of the bargain.

Instead, U.S. officials have lied to their citizens for forty additional years.  Until President Trump entered office, U.S. borders were not secured.  Businesses were rarely punished for hiring illegal aliens.  Unbeknownst to most American citizens, State and federal welfare programs continued to add illegal aliens to their taxpayer-funded dole rolls.  School districts in both cities and small towns continued to enroll illegal alien children.  Hospital emergency rooms continued to overflow with illegal alien patients seeking “free” medical care.  American jobs — especially blue-collar jobs — continued to go to illegal aliens because employers could pay foreigners less, avoid state and federal taxes, and use the threat of deportation as exploitative leverage over their workforces.  Illegal alien workers continued to place downward pressure on hourly wages.  Illegal aliens continued to place upward pressure on the costs of housing, energy, and household necessities.  

Sometime in the ‘90s, American politicians and government bureaucrats began admitting to Americans that there were roughly eleven million illegal aliens inside the United States.  For the next thirty years, politicians and bureaucrats repeated the same “eleven million” figure as if no net-increase in immigration had occurred.  Anybody living in small-town America knew this to be a demonstrable lie.  In the nineties, local school classrooms were made up almost entirely of American kids who grew up speaking English in households whose families had been living in the United States for generations.  As each year passed, those same classrooms were increasingly filled with kids whose parents had come from all over the world, and even small school districts were forced to hire staff who could attend to the needs of an increasingly foreign student body unfamiliar with basic English.  

Former Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino has said repeatedly that there are more than one hundred million illegal aliens residing in the United States.  In other words, roughly one out of every three people living inside the borders of the U.S. is a foreign national unlawfully here.  If those foreign nationals are employed, then they are likely guilty of identity fraud and committing a number of additional state and federal crimes.  Of those committing identity fraud, many are using social security numbers stolen from American citizens.  Illegal aliens who steal Americans’ identities adversely affect citizens’ credit scores, tax obligations with the IRS, and background checks.  Illegal aliens who fraudulently vote by claiming to be American citizens steal votes from actual American citizens.  Foreign nationals who illegally vote in American elections deny American citizens legitimate representation and undermine Americans’ constitutional form of self-government.

In 1986, lawmakers from both parties promised an end to illegal immigration.  Instead, tens of millions of new illegal aliens have continued to arrive.  In return for grudgingly acceding to the government’s desire to provide a one-time gift of amnesty to those foreigners whose first act in the country was to break our immigration laws, Americans continued to lose jobs, pay more for everything, and be defrauded by identity theft.  Even worse, they were forced to watch as foreign cultures transformed their schools and towns.  They were forced to watch as foreigners successfully ran for political office and pushed foreign policies and beliefs upon American citizens.  

New York City has a Muslim mayor from Uganda who has been a naturalized U.S. citizen for only eight years.  Minneapolis has a Muslim member of Congress from Somalia who became a naturalized U.S. citizen at the age of seventeen.  Roughly 4% of Congress are foreign-born naturalized citizens, while 15% of Congress have at least one immigrant parent.  A third of the judges occupying prestigious and powerful positions on the D.C. District Courts were born in foreign nations.  

These numbers are going in one direction — up!

When President Barack Obama spoke enthusiastically about “fundamentally transforming” the United States, this is what he had in mind.  If you invite third-world communists to break into your country, pretty soon your government will be filled with third-world communists, too.  Americans were never consulted about this “fundamental transformation.”  Politicians and bureaucrats steamrolled American citizens with tall tales of foreign immigrants fleeing violence in their home countries and seeking safety in the United States.  Nobody tried to explain why all the foreigners fleeing persecution in their home countries still wave their national flags in American neighborhoods and at American sporting events.  Nobody tried to explain why foreigners from all over the world couldn’t obtain asylum in countries closer to home.  Nobody tried to explain why so many foreigners claiming asylum in the United States continue to visit their friends and families in their native countries. 

No American ever voted for this radical transformation.  No politician or government bureaucrat respected American citizens enough to seek their consent.  Nevertheless, politicians and bureaucrats continue to lie to the American people by pretending that foreign nationals are not taking over their society.  Because they despise American citizens, government officials tell obvious lies without shame.

Where is all this shameless and callous disregard for the will of American citizens headed?  It is headed toward the same dead end already appearing in other Western nations such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and France: Increasingly, Western peoples are electing political representatives who promise to end divisive and deadly mass immigration policies.  The more that government officials undermine their citizens’ electoral will, the more that citizens are turning to the streets to be heard.  

Peaceful forms of civil disobedience are evolving into violent altercations with police. 

Instead of listening to their citizens, Western governments call them racists and censor their online speech.  At some point, citizens will conclude that their governments have become threats to their security and way of life.  Governments will lose their legitimacy.  Western countries will become battlefields.  Open borders guarantee that Western nations will die.

Immense controversy has remained centered on Ben Gurion International Airport as dozens of giant US Air Force refueling tankers have essentially taken over the main Israeli flight hub for many months, since the start of Trump’s Operation Epic Fury. Reports also say it has cost the airport hundreds of millions of dollars at this point.

The Israeli government itself seems to be divided, and there’s been outrage among the general public as the presence of the American tankers has blocked and slowed regular commercial flights, leading to the recent cancelations of many passengers’ tickets, but with an expected tens of thousands more cancelations to come.

On Tuesday the simmering controversy erupted again, and has even raised the possibility of introducing fresh tensions with Washington, after Israeli Transportation Minister Miri Regev announced that the government will not allow more than 20 US refueling tankers to be parked at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport at any given time.

Regev specifically addressed the domestic public’s concerns over air travel. “Hundreds of thousands of plane tickets were bought by Israelis to fly and enjoy their summer vacation,” the official said. “We promised that we will enable commercial flights and we will not cancel a single ticket because of American refueling planes.“

Haaretz had already by June tallied that “Some 75 U.S. refueling planes occupy more than half of Ben-Gurion Airport’s parking spots and fill up takeoff and landing slots” and cites airport officials who warn: “For lack of a solution, 1.5 million passengers may have their flights canceled this summer.”

“Therefore I have given instructions that we will not allow any US refueling tankers to land at Ben Gurion Airport beyond the agreed number of 20 planes and the remaining planes will land at Air Force bases,” Regev adds.

Israeli media notes that the crisis has been building:

The directive comes after the Israel Airports Authority warned that unless more US aircraft are removed from the country’s main international air gateway, as many as 50,000 flight tickets could be at risk of cancellation in the coming weeks.

The monthslong presence of US military aircraft at Ben Gurion Airport amid the Iran war has been preventing a full return to normal commercial flight operations, while also driving up operational costs for local airlines.

It’s a deep irony that Israelis are increasingly complaining the United States military has effectively taken over Israel’s international travel hub.

Media reports have been going so far as to call Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport a “US military base” – as the prominent local newspaper Haaretz does:

The US refueling aircraft and other military assets, which have been stationed at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport for months, are causing congestion and may result in flight cancellations, Israeli officials and media reports have said, calling the facility a “US military base.”

That prior report complained that “U.S. Air Force refueling aircraft have been stationed at Ben Gurion International Airport for three months, occupying parking spots, taking up takeoff and landing slots and worsening congestion at Israel’s main international gateway since the war with Iran erupted in late February, officials say.”

Again, a central irony here is that it has largely been US military assets protecting Israel the whole time, going all the way back from last year’s June war, from Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks.

The U.S. has reportedly paused the withdrawal of its aerial refueling aircraft from Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport as tensions with Iran continue to escalate.

The Times of Israel, citing the Israel Airports Authority, reports that the tankers continue to occupy parking space… pic.twitter.com/ag8FY7ETET

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 14, 2026

The Netanyahu government is perceived by many to be a prime reason the US and Iran are at war in the first place, and so the Pentagon might argue that it’s only fair that Israel host its large fleet of military planes and refueling aircraft.

Iran’s large retaliatory strikes on US airbases in the Gulf region during the opening weeks of the conflict essentially forced the Pentagon to move its expensive, large aerial assets much further back from the front lines of the war. Previously several parked tankers at Gulf facilities were destroyed or damaged.

It still remains unclear whether the Transportation Minister’s directive is approved by Netanyahu’s office. Likely all it will take is one angry phone call from President Trump and the order could be reversed.

Authored by Ian Miller via The Brownstone Institute,

Six years since “15 Days to Slow the Spread”, data shows why our policies didn’t work…

That policy has to have been one of the most disastrous in world history, created by “experts” who took all established pre-pandemic planning documents and tossed them out the window at the first opportunity.

It was a policy based on inaccurate reports out of China, which claimed that their lockdowns effectively stamped out transmission of Covid-19 within a matter of days.

It was a policy that ignored solid research – from established epidemiologists like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – which found that the coronavirus had already spread much more widely than previously realized.

It must be noted forever that lockdowns and the associated mask mandates, vaccine passports, and school closures continued in some places for several years. The ramifications of those wretched policies will be quite literally endless. It’s not an exaggeration to say that lockdowns, our policies, and responses have quite literally changed the course of world history.

One would think that there would definitely be a concerted effort to understand whether such policies were effective or not. Whether approaching respiratory viruses with authoritarian crackdowns on businesses and schools was necessary to save lives.

Yet six years later, there’s unfortunately very little interest in examining those questions. And when you understand the data from Sweden, you will see exactly why.

Study on Swedish Approach to Covid Shows Lockdowns Didn’t Work

A study published in PubMed examined the Swedish approach to Covid policy, relative to its European counterparts, primarily because Sweden did not rely on lockdowns in response to the pandemic, but instead used “voluntary and sustainable mitigation recommendations,” the study says.

Despite a “majority of Swedes” supporting those policies, “this approach faced rapid and continuous criticism.”

That criticism came primarily from public health figures such as, surprise, surprise, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who criticized Sweden repeatedly for going against the herd.

“You’ve compared us to Sweden, and there are a lot of differences,” he said during a Senate Committee hearing in September 2020. “But compare Sweden’s death rate to other comparable Scandinavian countries. It’s worse. So I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare Sweden with us.”

“If you look at Sweden, they are in some trouble,” Fauci claimed on Good Morning America in late 2020. “They are starting to see that their death rate is much higher than the surrounding countries of Norway, Denmark, and Finland…They’re starting to see now that they’re having to rethink some of the things they did.”

This was, of course, not true. They did not “rethink” their strategy of light touch recommendations over lockdowns. And comparing Sweden exclusively to its neighbors is an absurd misdirection that no other country was subjected to. But Fauci, obviously never one for honesty or intellectual integrity, represented many public health figures who were anxious to see Sweden fail.

Yet as this research shows, reality was precisely the opposite.

The study explains that Sweden received criticism for “not legally enforcing mask-wearing in public spaces,” as well as keeping schools open and “being too permissive” with its policies. All the things that we were told were necessary to stop Covid and save lives. The researchers tested these statements using excess mortality data and stringency indices to compare Sweden across the whole of Europe, not just its neighbors.

They chose excess mortality because, unlike Covid specific measurements, it’s less subject to bias, differences in testing, and counting, and individual definitions of Covid-caused outcomes. It also accounts for deaths that “could potentially be indirectly attributed to the negative effects of strict lockdown measures and the overall strain on healthcare systems, leading to reduced access to healthcare for other diseases, among other factors.”

Turns out that what they discovered was that Sweden vastly outperformed the rest of Europe from 2020-2022, with outcomes that were remarkably similar to the other Nordic countries.

“Among 42 European countries, the cumulative excess all-cause mortality from January 2020 to December 2022 ranged from 46 (Luxembourg) to 1,080 (Bulgaria) deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, with a median of 351/100,000,” they write. “In Sweden, the excess mortality rate of 158/100,000 was among the lowest, ranked 37th among 42 countries, and not very different from other Nordic countries: Norway (129), Denmark (97), and Finland (228).”

So why did Sweden underperform in 2020 relative to their neighbors? Likely due, as the study explains, to “mortality displacement due to low all-cause mortality in 2019,” as well as “poorly organized older adult care structures.”

What does this mean? Essentially, there were significantly fewer deaths from all causes in Sweden in 2019, meaning there were more extremely elderly people alive in 2020 that were susceptible to severe outcomes from Covid. This is reflected in the massive age gradient with Covid-associated deaths. In Sweden, “~40% of the COVID-19-associated deaths were among patients in nursing homes,” the study says, “and 67% of all COVID-19 deaths were among individuals above 80 years of age, representing 10% of all deaths in that age group.”

For younger age groups, Covid was mostly a non-issue. “COVID-19 deaths below 50 years of age represented only 1.2% of all COVID deaths, including 21 individuals below 20 years of age, mostly with underlying co-morbidities, representing 1% of all deaths in that age group.”

Effectively, Covid ravaged extremely elderly people, while those under 50, despite the lack of mask mandates and lockdowns, saw very limited impact.

Sweden’s Lack of Lockdowns Led to Better Outcomes

Equally important, they examined the “stringency index” for countries across Europe, then made a data table comparing that stringency to excess mortality from 2020-2022. Effectively, how strict were a country’s policies, and how much did that matter to reducing excess mortality?

Turns out, there’s a definitive, resounding answer which this chart demonstrates perfectly. Countries are plotted based on their stringency index, the x-axis, and excess mortality, the y-axis. The line demonstrates the trend in mortality rates, and there’s virtually no relationship between the severity of policy and preventing excess mortality.

The R-squared, effectively the relationship between stringency index and excess mortality, is just 0.14. The closer to 1, the more related stringency is to outcomes. This is 0.14.

Countries like Italy and Spain were some of the strictest when it came to lockdowns and mandates, yet ranked near the top in excess mortality rates. The UK, Portugal, the Netherlands and others were significantly more stringent and also had demonstrably worse outcomes. Denmark was the second least strict country and had the best outcomes, at least in this examination.

What does this tell us? Well, put simply, Fauci was wrong. Sweden did not underperform relative to its neighbors. It did significantly better than the rest of Europe, and of course, the United States. Lockdowns and stringency were not related, whatsoever, to reducing excess mortality. They never mandated masks, one of his chief policy recommendations, and outperformed other countries like Germany which imposed N95-level mandates for months on end.

This is a clear repudiation of the lockdown model. Which is precisely why Sweden’s example is deliberately being ignored today.

Because learning the actual results of these historically bad policies requires humility, accountability, and honesty, all qualities that many in public health are truly incapable of possessing.

Republished from the author’s Substack