Why Sweden has tightened its rules Covid Light-Touch: QuickTake

Photographer: Jessica Go / AFP / Getty Images

Sweden’s direct response to Covid-19, which avoided blockades while neighboring countries imposed restrictions, sparked controversy from the outset. Although mortality rates rose in early 2020, Sweden kept shops, restaurants and most schools open. It banned public meetings of more than 50 people and ordered some restaurants to be temporarily closed, but most of the measures had little legal weight. Although many people complied initially, they were less willing when the second wave occurred in November, forcing stricter measures.

1. What arguments did this provoke?

Lockdown skeptics saw the strategy as a way to avoid the negative side effects of restrictions to curb transmission and as a model to contain the virus without violating personal freedom. Critics have labeled it as a deadly or absolute nonsense disaster. Supporters of the government point to countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain that were blocked but have higher mortality rates than Sweden, while critics argue that the best comparison is with nearby countries such as Finland and Norway, which have densities. of similar population and health coverage, but whose mortality and infection levels have been much lower than in Sweden.

2. Why was Sweden not blocked?

Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist and lead architect of the response, argued that all aspects of public health should be considered, including the adverse impact of restricting people’s movements. Tegnell said Sweden followed tried and tested methods of handling pandemics, while other countries go “crazy ”in imposing blockades. In contrast, Sweden relied primarily on the willingness of people to adjust their lives voluntarily to help curb transmission. There are also legal limits on what measures Sweden can take; while a now there is a temporary rule that allows the government to close shops, Swedish legislation does not allow orders to stay at home or curfews.

3. Was the goal to achieve herd immunity?

Initially, the Public Health Agency assumed that the population’s immunity would end the transmission of the virus, although it denied the media. reports that its goal was to achieve herd immunity by allowing segments of the population to become infected. Herd immunity, which blocks transmission, comes when there are enough people in a community who have been immunized for infection or vaccination. Early calculations overestimated the number of unreported cases, which led experts to misjudge the level of protection of the population. Tegnell said in early May that at least 10% to 20% of people in Stockholm had been infected, while three weeks later the agency found that no more than 7% of the capital’s population had antibodies against the virus. When the second wave came, Tegnell and his colleagues made it clear that Sweden he could not rely on the herd’s immunity to stop the spread of the virus.

4. Was this more about politics or science?

In Sweden, authorities such as the Public Health Agency have great autonomy and, although the government has the last word, it tends to rely heavily on its experience. When the pandemic first hit Sweden in March, it was clear that the center-left government of Prime Minister Stefan Lofven would follow the approach set out by the agency and has continued to do so, even if the initiatives taken since November have shown some signs of a fracture. Although Lofven has said publicly that he continues to make decisions based on consultations with Tegnell and his agency, a number of measures since November indicate a more active government role.

5. Has the strategy been abandoned?