[alkonaut]

Wow yeas Mar 5th was probably around a month before it actually peaked, at least. Now, I don't know what data that statement was based on, it's possible that the days leading up to that really showed it - but in that case I don't think they were clear enough in saying a few days later that "nope, no it's not going down it's clearly still up".

I don't doubt that they are professionals but they are lousy communicators that somehow believe that sounding positive doesn't make them sound incompetent eventually. Sounding pessimistic and then positively surprised would be equally bad (scientifically) but would have much better optics!

[imartin2k]

3 days later Tegnell (March 8) said he had been "a bit too optimistic" (something he stated a couple of more times since then) and that the increase "might go on for a few more days".

"Därför verkar peaken dra ut ytterligare något eller några dygn mer än jag trodde, säger han och tror att kulmen kommer att nås i början på nästa vecka." https://omni.se/anders-tegnell-om-kulmen-jag-var-lite-for-op...

Personally I don't buy this being mostly a communication issue. I see this as an actual inability in intelligent, complex, system's thinking. In his brain, there is no large "simulation" of a global pandemic. There is a very small perspective, focusing only on Sweden, and only on the here and now, and the evidence that already has been produced. With this, one is doomed to be always behind, to ignore a lot of valuable knowledge, always being "too optimistic", and accumulating fatalities along the way. Obviously, his team doesn't seem to have contributed with a lot more either (or they have been ignored by him, who knows how the internal dynamics are)

He might be a scientist. But there are good scientists. And there are bad ones. Right?