Why Sweden tightened the Covid Light-Touch: QuickTake rules

Photographer: Jessica Go / AFP / Getty Images

Sweden’s direct response to Covid-19, avoiding roadblocks while neighboring countries imposed restrictions, was controversial from the start. Despite rising death rates in early 2020, Sweden has kept shops, restaurants and most schools open. It banned public meetings of more than 50 people and some restaurants were forced to close temporarily, but most of the measures had little legal weight. Although many people initially agreed, they were less willing when the second wave arrived in November, forcing stricter measures.

1. What arguments did this raise?

Skeptics of the blockade saw the strategy as a way to avoid the negative side effects of restrictions to contain transmission and as a model to contain the virus without infringing on personal freedom. Critics labeled him deadly madness or a complete disaster. Government supporters point to countries like the UK, Italy and Spain, which have blocked, but have higher mortality rates than Sweden, while critics argue that the best comparison is with nearby countries, like Finland and Norway, which have densities similar populations and health coverage, but whose mortality rates and infection levels are well below those in Sweden.

2. Why did Sweden not block?

Anders Tegnell, a Swedish state epidemiologist and the main architect of the response, argued that all aspects of public health should be taken into account, including the adverse impact of restricting people’s movements. Tegnell said that Sweden followed tried and tested methods to deal with pandemics, while other countries were “crazy ”by imposing blocks. Instead, Sweden relied primarily on people’s willingness to voluntarily adjust their lives to help contain the transmission. There are also legal limits on the measures that Sweden can take; while one The temporary rule that allows the government to close stores is already in effect, Swedish law does not allow requests to stay at home or curfew.

3. Was the objective to achieve the herd’s immunity?

The Public Health Agency initially assumed that the population’s immunity would eventually stop the transmission of the virus, although it denies reports that his goal was to achieve collective immunity, allowing segments of the population to be infected. Herd immunity, which blocks transmission, occurs when a sufficient number of people in a community have been immunized, either through infection or vaccination. Early calculations overestimated the number of unreported cases, leading experts to misjudge the population’s level of protection. Tegnell said in early May that at least 10% to 20% of people in Stockholm were 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 hit, Tegnell and his colleagues made it clear that Sweden he could not count on collective immunity to prevent the spread of the virus.

4. Was it more about politics or science?

In Sweden, authorities like the Public Health Agency have a great deal of autonomy and, although the government has the final say, it tends to rely heavily on its experience. When the pandemic hit Sweden for the first time in March, it was clear that Prime Minister Stefan Lofven’s center-left government would follow the approach outlined by the agency, and has continued to do so, even though initiatives taken since November have showed some signs of a crack. 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 role for the government.

5. Was the strategy abandoned?