Sweden Wins the Debate on COVID ‘Lockdown’ Policy

Written by Patrick Henningsen

As Europe and North America continue suffering their steady economic and social decline as a direct result of imposing ‘lockdown’ on their populations, other countries have taken a different approach to dealing with the coronavirus threat.

You wouldn’t know it by listening to western politicians or mainstream media stenographers, there are also nonlockdown countries. They are led by Sweden, Iceland, Belarus, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Surprisingly to some, their results have been as good or better than the lockdown countries, but without having to endure the socio-economic chaos we are now witnessing across the world. For this reason alone, Sweden and others like them, have already won the policy debate, as well as the scientific one too.

Unlike much of the rest of the world who saw fit to unquestioningly follow China’s lead on everything from quarantining, to economic shutdowns, to contact tracing, and PCR mass testing, nonlockdown countries have instead opted for a somewhat lighter touch – preserving their economies and societies, and in doing so avoiding an endless daisy chain of new problems and obstacles deriving directly from the imposition of brutal lockdown policy.

On the European front, the Scandinavian country of Sweden is now garnering more attention than before, and has become an object of both criticism and fascination for those against or in favor of lockdown policy.

While countries like the United States and Great Britain continue to top the global tables in terms of COVID-19 death tolls, Sweden has only suffered marginal casualties in comparison, while avoiding the intense strain on society and loss in public confidence which lockdown governments are now grappling with as they continue to push their populations to the limits of social stress and economic tolerance.

You could say those governments are already careening over the edge by looking at the latest jobless figures coming out the US with 30 million new people filing for unemployment in the last few weeks.


Unlike many others, Sweden has not enforced any strict mass quarantine measures to contain COVID-19, nor has it closed any of its borders. Rather, Swedish health authorities have issued a series of guidelines for social distancing and other common sense measures covering areas like hygiene, travel, public gatherings, and protecting the elderly and immune compromised.

They have kept all preschools, primary and secondary schools open, while closing college and universities who are now doing their work and lectures online. Likewise, many bars and restaurants have remained open, and shoppers do not have to perform the bizarre ritual of queuing around the block standing 2 meters apart in order to buy groceries.

According to the country’s top scientists, they are now well underway to achieving natural herd immunity. It seems this particular Nordic model has already won the debate.

Because Sweden decided to follow real epidemiological science and pursue a common sense strategy of herd immunity, it doesn’t need to “flatten of the curve” because its strategic approach has the added benefit of achieving a much more gradual and wider spread.

Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s government advisor for epidemiology explains, “We are all trying to keep the spread of this disease as low as possible, mainly to prevent our healthcare system from being overstretched, but we have not gone for the complete lockdown.

We have managed to keep the number of cases low enough so the intensive care units have kept working and there has always been 20 per cent beds empty and enough protective equipment, even in Stockholm, where there has been a huge stress on healthcare. So in that way the strategy has worked.”

Similarly, it doesn’t have the deal with the newest ‘crisis’ obstacle which lockdown states seem to be using as an excuse not to reopen society and the economy, which the fear of a ‘second peak‘ which governments are telling the public will wreak havoc on the nation by “infecting the vulnerable” and will “overwhelm the health services” if everything is suddenly reopened and social isolation and distancing is relaxed.

This catch 22 which countries like the US and UK are caught in is predicated on the belief that the coronavirus might suddenly unleash itself again on the populace. Certainly, there could be a second surge, but it should be noted that this is also a direct result of the decision to impose lockdown in the first place.

According to top epidemiologist Dr Knut Wikkowski, the decision to lockdown only delayed the inevitable for countries like the US and UK, and quite possibly made the COVID-19 problem even worse than it would have previously been in the short to midterm, but in the long-term the results would be relatively the same proportionally in term of human casualties.

The penny should have really dropped after it was revealed two weeks ago by Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director for Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, that the peak of the UK’s coronavirus ‘crisis’ actually came a full week before Boris Johnson initiated lockdown on March 23rd.

In fact, if you plug in Sweden’s actual data into Neil Ferguson’s own infamous computer model which sent the UK government into mass-panic mode, here’s what you would get:


The numbers don’t lie, but statistics can be made to tell any story the narrator wants, especially when the storyteller is government. Just look at the last 50 years of announcements regarding unemployment and inflation levels.

One thing we should have learned by now is that government will never let things like facts and real science get in the way of a slow motion train wreck in progress, hence you can see some UK officials still clinging to Ferguson’s initial prediction as some sort of ‘proof’ that the lockdown was necessary to avoid ‘mass death.’

Outside of popular supposition and media talking points, there is no scientific study which shows that lockdown saved any significant number of lives. Instead, new data strongly suggests quite the opposite.

The Ribbing of Sweden

As western lockdown countries drift further and further into an economic and social purgatory, nonlockdown countries like Sweden seem to be the target of bad-natured criticism by western media punditry.

This seems to be out spite more than anything, as some journalists are sensing defeat after they had thrown their lot in with draconian lockdown policy early on, unquestioningly backing their governments’ one-size-fits-all approach to emergency management, once again invoking the TINA (There Is No Alternative) principle which history shows often precedes most man-made calamities from World War I, the Iraq War in 2003, to the 2008 Wall Street Bail Out.

Nonetheless, the media and political pressure has been almost relentless on Sweden for not complying with the west’s ‘lockdown consensus.’

The country has also been roundly criticized by some 2,300 academics who piled on scorn upon it in a letter posted in March demanding the government change course and immediately head for lockdown.

However, the country has held off, and has since won endorsements from a number of eminent academics and professionals, like Professor Heneghan who hailed Sweden for “holding its nerve,” in the face of such public condemnation. That steadfastness seems to finally be paying dividends now, as some western mainstream media outlets, and even the UN itself, are acknowledging their comparable success.

The New York Post begrudgingly acknowledged that Sweden received praise from the high chair of global public health at the World Health Organization (WHO), now lauded it as a “model” for overcoming the coronavirus crisis.

Dr. Micheal Ryan, WHO head of emergency management said, “What it has done differently is it has very much relied on its relationship with its citizenry and the ability and willingness of its citizens to implement self-distancing and self-regulate.”

He added, “In that sense, they have implemented public policy through that partnership with the population …. I think if we are to reach a new normal, Sweden represents a model if we wish to get back to a society in which we don’t have lockdowns.”

So according to WHO, it is Sweden which could be the new normal – and not the reactionary medieval quarantine policies favored by other states. Is WHO really making an argument against obsessive social isolation, and collective economic suicide?

Such words from WHO should, in theory, be reassuring to those stuck in their lockdown death spirals. But many in the west are still convinced of the TINA principle, even if their next door neighbor has chosen a short and more practical route through the eye of the storm.

More than anything, this conundrum speaks to the relationship between people and their governments. Indeed, it is the social contract between government and its citizens which forms the core of the country’s policy formation. The idea that the choice of lockdown policy is a straight trade-off between lives and economy is a false dichotomy which ignores many concomitant variables and factors which are at play.

“I don’t think it was in terms of economy versus a health of people. I think it was a broader concern about the social fabric in general,” said Lars Trägårdh, professor of history and civil society studies at Ersta Sköndal University College.

“It is wonderful that we have retained the amount of freedoms that we have here ….Who would have thought, you know, that Swedish social democracy would be in bed with American right-wing libertarians? Not me,” remarked Trägårdh.

Professor Cecilia Soderberg-Naucler from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute explained why the state was duty-bound to take the direction it did. “We must establish control over the situation, we cannot head into a situation where we get complete chaos. No one has tried this route, so why should we test it first in Sweden, without informed consent?” said Soderberg-Naucler.

This concept of people talking responsibility for their actions and for public well-being is actually enshrined in Sweden’s constitution. This means that the state does not have to threaten and abuse its citizens for things like not observing social distancing and buying ‘non essential items’ when out shopping, or meeting in small groups – as some governments are doing.

Swedes know the risks and observe government guidelines accordingly. They also acknowledge that humans are not perfect and won’t use police and courts to punish citizens if they are not following guidelines to the letter – as is the case in many lockdown countries.

In lockdown countries, the bad blood between the public and government will not evaporate after the ‘crisis’ is over, which is a real problem which lockdown governments will continue facing in the future.

Still, New York Post had to include the caveat that Sweden was something of a pariah state for “controversially refused restrictions“. The propaganda war could be seen in the paper’s subtle wordsmithing, where editors even went so far as to change their headline from “WHO lauds Sweden as ‘model’ in coronavirus fight for resisting lockdown,” to a slightly more incendiary “WHO lauds lockdown-ignoring Sweden as a ‘model’ for countries going forward”

Swedish critics are quick to point out how poorly it’s doing compared to its Scandinavian neighbors, Denmark, Norway and Finland. They do this by pointing to the new global bible of public policy – the World-o-Meter coronavirus running totals – which for some people is now the end all and be all which it comes to declaring how really, really bad things are, and will continue to be (because that meter just keeps on running).

As of today, Sweden, which has a population of roughly 10.5 million, has recorded 21,092 cases and 2,586 fatalities from COVID-19, that’s roughly 256 deaths per million people.

By contrast, its southern neighbor Denmark which has a population of 5.8 million has recorded 9,1058 cases and 452 fatalities, roughly 78 deaths per million persons.  Norway is similar population at 5.4 million, and has recorded 7,738 cases and 210 deaths, that’s 39 deaths per million. Finland has a population of 5.5 million confirmed just 4,995 cases and 211 deaths, with 38 deaths per million.

Critics of Sweden have all seized upon these differences in order to condemn their government for being ‘irresponsible’ and “playing Russian roulette” with their citizens’ lives. If one didn’t know better from all the hysterical rhetoric, you’d think there was an impending genocide happening there.

While these sort of polemic arguments seem to work in the narrow band of reality that are social media threads, the reality is that after scaling up its neighbors’ results to be in line with Sweden’s larger population which is roughly twice their size, the difference is statistically insignificant for a country of 10.5 million.

They are basically arguing that when comparing Sweden to its neighbor Denmark, that a proportional difference of approximately 1,500 fatalities warrants Sweden closing all its schools and shutting down its entire economy and suffer all the chaos ill effects that goes with that course of action.

To put things in even more perspective, while Sweden has already suffered  2,586 COVID deaths in 2020, back in 2018 there were approximately 6,997 total respiratory disease deaths in Sweden – and the country’s healthcare capacity was not overrun, nor were any of their public systems stretched to breaking point.

It’s a ridiculous argument on its face, and yet, this is the line of thinking which seems to permeate through lockdown countries desperate to justify their own fatal policy decision.

It’s not a discussion for faint hearts, but this has been a reality for nations since time immemorial who have faced war, plagues and pandemics. There is no perfect answer, but there are practical answers that take utilitarianism into account.

Fear of the ‘Second Wave’

In what can only be described as a macabre display of bad faith, exasperated naysayers from lockdown countries seem to almost eager to see Sweden fall victim to the dreaded “second wave” which many Britons and Americans insist is a fait accompli, as their political leaders and science ‘experts’ keep telling them.

The threat of a ‘second wave’ is certainly being used by some governments to justify an increasingly unpopular lockdown policy, but also lends itself to the preferences of Bill Gates who has been publicly advocating an open-ended lockdown arrangement until such a time that salvation will arrive in the form of a vaccine for the coronavirus.

But even the most optimistic scenario would be somewhere between 18 months and two years, which begs the question of whether democracies and their economies can survive such an extended period of tumult. That’s a scenario which no one can realistically endorse, and yet it’s given prime time by mainstream media outlets who have been keen of offer-up the Gates plan as another TINA solution to the ‘pandemic’.

Besides the obvious civilizational problems with the Gates global lock-up plan, it chronically ignores the fact that there are nonlockdown countries like Sweden who never opted into the west’s collective self-destruction pact.

Not everyone is on board with the inevitability of a “second wave” which the American and British government keeps insisting is coming if lockdown is lifted too early. Renowned Scottish microbiologist Professor Hugh Pennington is not convinced, saying that such a second peak is unlikely. “No, I’m not sure where this ‘second peak’ idea comes from,” says Pennington.

Still, Prof. Pennington seemed miffed as to where Boris Johnson’s government is getting its science from. “I know where it comes from, it comes from flu. Because when we have a flu pandemic we always get a second peak, and sometimes we get a third peak …. Now, why we should get one with this virus, I don’t quite understand …. It just seems to be a phenomenon with flu, and I don’t see any reason myself, and I haven’t seen any evidence to support the idea that there would be a second peak of the virus.”

According to other experts, one of the fundamental problem with lockdown policy favored by the US, UK other European countries, is that it was never evidence-based, or “guided by the science.” Quite the opposite in fact.

Rather, it was a political decision, undertaken by politicians. Never in history has a country enacted such a universal measure which quarantines the healthy as well as the sick and infirmed. This also flies in the face of hundreds of years of epidemiological science and epidemic policy, and eschews the entire concept of natural herd immunity.

Again, the pragmatic approach would have been to protect those most directly effected by COVID-19 which is overwhelmingly the elderly and those in palliative care – a policy which would eventually bring a population herd immunity as a natural by-product of that policy. That’s been the approach taken by Sweden and other states, and according to numerous experts in the field, it makes sense on both an epidemiological level and well as a social and economic level.

Read more at 21stcenturywire.com


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (27)

  • Avatar

    Richard Wakefield

    |

    “Sweden has only suffered marginal casualties in comparison”

    This is completely false. The entire article is bogus.

    Sweden deaths per million = 264
    Norway deaths per million = 40
    Finland deaths per million = 30
    Taiwan deaths per million = 0.25

    No matter what measure you look at, Sweden is one of the WORST countries. Their lack of lockdown has killed thousands.

    Look here for comparisons to other countries. There is a HUGE difference between countries that closed their borders in January (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Norway, Czech Republic) and those who either waited to long (Europe, Canada, US, UK) and those who didnt lock down (Belgium, Sweden, Brazil).

    https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#confirmed-deaths

    See also

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/04/24/sweden-health-chief-admits-its-not-over-as-coronavirus-cases-leap/?fbclid=IwAR33sL8GZK2slGssgAETm7vUVrKLLyP6a8G6lQH40pAMI9xSOUM54wdFieg#2722da63573f

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-24/sweden-steps-up-covid-19-controls-as-warm-weather-adds-to-risks?utm_content=business&utm_source=facebook&cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&fbclid=IwAR0hXkGawPI3dRAUxkMWxym4Mda21nchG_yz8hOHHSPN0IDEVddcMT0K4Ro

    “It is too soon for a full reckoning of the effects of the “Swedish model.” The COVID-19 death rate is nine times higher than in Finland, nearly five times higher than in Norway, and more than twice as high as in Denmark. To some degree, the numbers might reflect Sweden’s much larger immigrant population, but the stark disparities with its Nordic neighbors are nonetheless striking. Denmark, Norway, and Finland all imposed rigid lockdown policies early on, with strong, active political leadership.”
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/swedish-coronavirus-no-lockdown-model-proves-lethal-by-hans-bergstrom-2020-04?fbclid=IwAR2bYbOBKJ8VBWt7DFxdIazki7_gh42y1lxW8eE7qd5277-98OuSe_D_TyM

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Aaron Christiansen

      |

      “The entire article is bogus.”

      No offense but your links, deaths per million and overall argument are presented in this article, so unless your comment (which is literally a subset of the article’s content) is “entirely bogus”, then neither is the article.

      The counter argument presented in the article in case you missed it, goes like this:
      A. 2018 Swedish respiratory related deaths were around 7,000. This did not overload the medical system.
      B. Sweden’s neighbours are proportionately 1500 fewer people dead.
      C. Sweden’s total deaths (which are now past the peak) are sitting at around 2,500

      +A – What has happened in the past / what they can cope with
      -B – How much better their neighbours are doing
      -C – How poorly they are doing presently

      The argument is: taking these three items into account does not warrant shutting down the economy, schools, etc.

      Looking particularly closely at +A, I would tend to agree. -B/-C sound more like “whataboutery” to me and reinforce the argument of +A that shutting the entire country down seems disproportionate.

      As to the comparison with “neighbours”, I am curious why Netherlands is not considered a neighbour of Sweden. Or Germany. Or Poland. It seems a little cherry-picky to me. Finland has sweet FA immigrants / “refugees” for starters.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Richard Wakefield

        |

        You can go to the Our World In data and add those countries. Sweden is worse.

        “The argument is: taking these three items into account does not warrant shutting down the economy, schools, etc.”

        During the Spanish Flu, the second wave was far worse than the first. Those US States that locked down had fewer deaths and economically recovered faster than those countries that didnt.

        Go add Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan to graphs. They all locked down flights from China in late January.

        Compare them to countries that didnt, like Belgium and Brazil.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Aaron Christiansen

          |

          “During the Spanish Flu, the second wave was far worse than the first. Those US States that locked down had fewer deaths and economically recovered faster than those countries that didnt.”

          The second wave won’t touch you if you have herd immunity.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Richard Wakefield

            |

            When Europeans came to America, they brought with them viruses for which they had this “herd immunity”. But the indigenous peoples there didnt get this “herd immunity” until 90% of them were killed by these viruses.

            We do not know how many people do NOT have the gene required to make the antibodies. How many people are we willing to kill, sacrifice, to achieve this “herd immunity”?

            Sweden doesnt seem to care how many. It’s that a form of genocide, or at the least criminal negligence causing death? Isnt it the responsibility of government to protect ALL their citizens?

          • Avatar

            Richard Wakefield

            |

            “The second wave won’t touch you if you have herd immunity.”

            It will when the virus mutates, and there are at least 3 major strains now in circulation.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Richard, no one is forcing you to go out. If you feel threatened, you are free to stay in your house until you die. Others may prefer to enjoy life. You get to live how you want, and so do others.

            Win-win.

        • Avatar

          Ddwieland

          |

          In comparisons with the Spanish Flu, we should keep in mind that the mortality rate was much higher than that of COVID-19. As well, we should consider the common characteristics of most of the fatalities, which are old age and significant time spent close to others, especially indoors. A significant factor in Sweden’s death stats is its many large retirement and elder care homes.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            lifeisthermal

            |

            Norway and Finland has admitted they don´t count corona deaths in nursery homes. Here in Sweden we do.

  • Avatar

    Aaron Christiansen

    |

    I am a fan of Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 from a purely “this study needs a control” POV, as well as loving my liberty, but it’s a bit frustrating when the article says

    “They have kept all preschools, primary and secondary schools open,”

    but the local Swedish news site says

    “On March 17th, the government recommended educational institutions, including gymnasieskolor (upper secondary schools), and universities to transition to long-distance education from Wednesday onwards.”

    Google translate says gymnasieskolor = high schools.

    Unless you wrote this pre-March 17, your research (from what I have read) appears misguided.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    There are a lot of very gpod points made in this article, and in particular the penaultimate paragraph where it says about it being unprecedented to quarantine “…the healthy as well as the sick…” I can understand perfectly isolating the vulnerable, but not the healthy. If people are unable to gain immunity from the virus by catching it (and remember 95% of cases are mild), if it reappears, we will have exactly the same problem again but very few will have an immunity, so we can expect another lockdown and more economic damage.

    I am now beginning to wonder if those saying this is all to start us on the road to a totalitarian state may be it right after all.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Aaron Christiansen

      |

      Agreed re: immunity.

      The irony is many of the panic peddlers suggest “COVID-19 is worse than seasonal flu coz natural immunity!!”, but fail to connect the dots: we won’t get natural immunity to COVID-19 unless we get infected by it. Add to this

      It doesn’t appear to hit kids too hard
      kid to adult transmission appears rare
      many people are asymptomatic

      and Sweden’s process doesn’t appear as bad as some want to make it out to be.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Richard Wakefield

      |

      Regards to immunity:

      https://www.livescience.com/genes-for-covid19-coronavirus-severity.html

      This virus isnt causing some people any symptoms because this is an elegant and insidious virus. Like HIV and other spiked viruses, it coats itself with sugar molecules, which camouflages itself rendering your immune system blind to it. In young people it invades the cells, creates more viruses, but doesnt kill the cells. Making these people virus factories (as it does in the bats it came from).

      This pandemic is far from over, far from finished killing.

      https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/cidrap-covid19-viewpoint-part1.pdf

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Aaron Christiansen

        |

        “This virus isnt causing some people any symptoms because this is an elegant and insidious virus”

        Or because it simply doesn’t affect them, or their cytokine system deals with it well enough.

        ” In young people it invades the cells, creates more viruses, but doesnt kill the cells. Making these people virus factories (as it does in the bats it came from).”

        Not sure on your definition of “young”, but the report I saw recently said no adult had contracted COVID-19 from a child.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Richard Wakefield

          |

          “Not sure on your definition of “young”, but the report I saw recently said no adult had contracted COVID-19 from a child.”

          As far as they can tell. Doesnt mean it isnt happening.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Michael

        |

        You present your statement as if it is factual, when in actuality, the idea you put forward is no more than an unproven hypothesis with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
        However, if your imaginary unproven hypothesis did turn out to be true, it would necessarily make the production of a effective vaccine impossible. Given the brutal and devastating isolation/social distancing paradigm which leaves any population who is forced to adopt it fully vulnerable to recurring outbreaks and permanent threat of pandemic is unable to ever be ended without successful development of a vaccine. If your unproven hypothetical theory does prove true, then those nations who have chosen isolation/self-distancing will either have to make those isolation and self-distancing measures PERMANENT, or they will have to ABANDON them and adopt the policy of achieving herd immunity. Your argument is actually a spurious distraction that in no way supports the doctrine of mass quarantine of entire populations.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Dev

      |

      I am in agreement too – enjoy listening to him on UKColumn.

      At least if we had continued working some would have a glimmer of hope for the future instead of wrecking the economy for everyone? Where is the logic in that ?
      What is the point of that ?

      So why would they do it this way when it makes no sense?

      Maybe Its about value.
      Humans create value and a very small % at the top of the food chain asset strip via the central banking system and the markets as they always have done, the latter a more recent mechanism.
      Advances in technology, engineering and automation means human commercial value is now diminishing rapidly.
      The uber rich get richer and the rest get poorer.
      Maybe – we are seen as redundant – literally! In their eyes.
      Surplus to requirement?

      The truth is that there is more than enough to go around.
      Money is not true value merely a representation if it, and that means that we all globally represent far greater value by our sheer number, individuality, creativity, diversity and not least our morality.
      If this is the case, then It isn’t the vast majority of individuals, who are redundant!

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Jonas

    |

    I am Swedish and I do live in Sweden. My understanding is that the death numbers in Sweden is similiar to other countries, not better but not worse either. One has to be a bit careful with comparisions. If you do a perfect lockdown (Norway), very few people will get the virus. On the other hand they will go insane (after some weeks). It is not really sustainable.

    The reason that we do not have a full lockdown is due to a rather old system, where the goverment (politicians) do not have the right to interfere with authority decisions. It is forbidden in the law. It means that professionals make the decision – not the politicians.

    This Swedish system is different compared to other countries in this respect. Politicians can only give general directions to authorities (once a year). What it means is that our health authority has full decision power, and they do not have to take political considerations. E.g. they do not have to worry about coming elections.

    I am not saying that our system is better, but it originates from a time when we tried to minimize the kings influence. Personally, I think it is good, since politicians has a tendency to overreact.

    In the articel you refer to Anders Tegnell as a “goverment advisor”. He is not an advisor. He (and his organisation – the health authority) is the decision maker.

    Our health authority has told us:
    – most of us will sooner or later get the virus, independent of what measures we take
    – the main target is to control the spread rate, in order to avoid overloding the hospitals
    – the target is not to stop the infection (since it is not possible)

    The guidlines are:
    – stay home if you feel sick (even if it is just minor symptoms)
    – wash your hands frequently
    – avoid gatherings of more that 50 people
    – take own responsability

    The lock down of upper high school has be strongly critized as a meaningless action. They are now re-opening the high schools.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Aaron Christiansen

      |

      I have appreciated Sweden’s approach, particularly the way it looks like you are treating the populace as adults, rather than children. The more I see re: infection rates, asymptomatic cases and the way it leaves children alone, the more strongly I am convinced Sweden is doing it right.

      Thanks for an on the ground report and the background re: separation of state & experts – much appreciated.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Richard Wakefield

      |

      Maybe you can explain why, in only Sweden, does the virus kill far fewer people on weekends.

      While we are at it, explain this:
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/04/24/sweden-health-chief-admits-its-not-over-as-coronavirus-cases-leap/?fbclid=IwAR33sL8GZK2slGssgAETm7vUVrKLLyP6a8G6lQH40pAMI9xSOUM54wdFieg#2722da63573f

      It is too soon for a full reckoning of the effects of the “Swedish model.” The COVID-19 death rate is nine times higher than in Finland, nearly five times higher than in Norway, and more than twice as high as in Denmark. To some degree, the numbers might reflect Sweden’s much larger immigrant population, but the stark disparities with its Nordic neighbors are nonetheless striking. Denmark, Norway, and Finland all imposed rigid lockdown policies early on, with strong, active political leadership.

      https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/swedish-coronavirus-no-lockdown-model-proves-lethal-by-hans-bergstrom-2020-04?fbclid=IwAR2bYbOBKJ8VBWt7DFxdIazki7_gh42y1lxW8eE7qd5277-98OuSe_D_TyM

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Jonas

        |

        I am not saying that the Swedish model is the right way. Nor does our Health Authority.
        I just tried to explain that in Sweden the strategy is decided by the health authority – not the goverment. I think that is the reason why Sweden has taken a different approach.

        My understanding is that both the Norweigian and the Danish health authorities advocated the same approach as Sweden, but they were overruled by the politicians. That was not an option for the Swedish politician (it would be in conflict with our “constitution”).

        The reason for fewer virus kill on weekends is a lag in the reporting during the weekends. This is no secret. It is fully communicated by the health authority.

        I do not know where you have got the death rate numbers from. I do not recognize them, and they are not in agreement with any reporting in Sweden, Denmark or Finland. The Swedish numbers are similiar to the Dansh numbers (and dutch, spanish, italian,…) Norway is lower at the moment (due to a total lock down). The pandemia came to Finland some weeks later than in Sweden.

        I think our health autority has a point when they say that the total number of virus kill will be the same (as percentage) in all countries when the pandemia has subsided. Most people will get the flu sooner or later. The mortality is a certain fraction.
        The focus is not to save everybody (since it is not possible). We have to accept that some people die. The focus is to control the rate – to avoid overloading the health care system. As long as we can give sick people professional health care, the target is met. If we can meet this target without locking down the whole society, there are of course a number of benefits with the strategy.

        As our health authority say – nobody knows what is the best strategy today. We can only know when afterwards.
        Anyway, I do appreciate that the experts are charge for strategy. Not the politicians.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Tom O

          |

          It seems to me that the deaths in Sweden were nearly all older people in what we would call nursing homes. When it was recognized that these people needed more protection, the decision was made to more isolate them, but the damage had already been done.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      lifeisthermal

      |

      But they changed the laws now, didn´t they? Next time they can lock us down. And there will be a next time, and they will lock us down.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Josh

    |

    “statistically insignificant for a country of 10.5 million”. What? First, a random sample of 10 million people will ALWAYS yield a statistically significant result (OK, not always, but the odds of it not are vanishingly low). And second, statistical significance is a way to measure the likelyhood that a sample accurately describes its population. Here you are talking about THE ENTIRE POPULATION of Sweden. Statistical significance is irrelevant.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JaKo

    |

    Jonas revealed (thank you) some facts we may not have been aware of (e.g. decision-making in Sweden) and reminded us of the prognosis according to the Swedish health authority:
    “– most of us will sooner or later get the virus, independent of what measures we take”
    and, “– take own responsibility”

    Both could work only in disciplined and intelligent society with a solid health care as the Swedish is.
    The first one is rather an assumption (based on the theory of possible acquired immunity), while the second is a good advice to anyone capable of that (personal responsibility) at any time…
    I think it is good to hear another view of the “Swedish Success:”
    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/04/29/96971/

    BTW, Dr. Roberts along with Prof. Hudson (https://michael-hudson.com/) are among the few remaining classical political economists who tend to see events from a perspective different than that taken by many, those often directed by the MSM, even not so “Main-Stream,” views…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Roger

    |

    I’m a swedish citizen, living in Sweden. I agree with Jonas (who has commented above), that no-one is saying that our way is better or worse than anyone else in terms approach. But I’m pretty sure that most swedes feel more free and can endure this pandemic in a better way than citizens in lock-down countries. We are free to go to work, visit friends, go buy our groceries without hours of queuing, have our lunch/dinner in a restaurant and move freely in the streets, forests etc.
    We are, of course, all aware of the virus and wash our hands more often than before, utilize physical distancing, avoid hugs (more than before) and avoid things that would expose us more than necessary. We are limited from visiting our elderly and limits ourselves from seeing people who have respiratory challenges.
    But there is a huge difference from many other countries: we do these things out of free will and are not ordered to isolate ourselves, leading me to believe that we will see lower numbers of depression, suicides, domestic violence etc than will surface in countries undergoing lockdown.
    I guess time will tell which approach was better or worse, but I don’t like when politicians interfere in things they don’t understand. Politics will always be inferior of science in my book.

    Reply

Leave a comment