Has Sweden’s strategy of not closing the country paid off? Experts suggest not rushing to conclusions.

The statistics are really impressive. Yes, Sweden is still considered an affected country, as the incidence of COVID-19 in the last 14 days exceeds 25 cases per 100,000. population and amounts to 30.4 cases.

However, this figure is much better than in many other Western European countries except Germany. In Spain, for example, the incidence is 281 cases per 100,000. population, 163 in France, 75 in Belgium and 129 in the Czech Republic.

All the states mentioned here announced strict restrictions on public life in the spring, but the virus made a strong comeback. Although there are far fewer deaths, the pandemic continues to impede relaxation.

At that time, Sweden may, at least at first glance, find it easier to breathe. According to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, currently more infections are reported than in Sweden in 19 of the 31 countries monitored.

True, some experts would like the strong conclusions that the decision of the Swedes not to torture their citizens was justified by the fact that, as in the spring, some generalizations are still difficult to make, they are not published.

Asked, not instructed

In Sweden, new data on the spread of the coronavirus is now released less frequently, only from Tuesday to Friday. The number of new cases is now as high as it was at the end of March, with only 1.2% positive last week. of 120 tests performed.

In neighboring Norway, the number of new infections is roughly the same, but in Denmark it is almost double. There are only 13 COVID-19 patients in hospital intensive care units, with only isolated deaths.

Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, the architect of a strategy that did not “shut down” the country, is, of course, satisfied.

“We don’t see a recurrence of the disease in the country, which we are seeing in many other countries,” Tegnell said, adding that Stockholm now sees the chosen strategy as successful.

“Finally, we will see the difference between a more sustainable and applicable strategy over a longer period of time and a strategy that means closing, opening and closing again,” said the researcher.

The government has only asked 10 million people, has not ordered them, to respect physical distance from others and, if possible, to work from home.

Unlike many other countries, Sweden closed schools only for students aged 16 and over; others had to go to educational establishments. Now both schools and universities are operating at full capacity.

Sweden also banned gatherings of more than 50 people in the spring and ordered people over 70 and at risk to isolate themselves.

Still, perhaps most importantly, the government only asked 10 million people, not ordered them, to respect physical distance from others and, if possible, to work from home. Many did, and shops, bars, restaurants, or sports clubs stayed open. The use of masks has never been nor is it mandatory.

Disaster in a nursing home

There was a lot of criticism then, in the spring, but Tegnell said the goal was not to form a so-called herd immunity as soon as possible, but to slow the spread of the coronavirus to cope with the greater burden on the health system.

It is true that both Tegnell and the politicians who blessed his strategy have consistently ensured that Sweden’s plan will be more sustainable going forward.

This approach has faced a storm in Europe, especially as the number of people infected with coronavirus has started to increase rapidly. Residents of nursing homes suffered the most and the government had to admit that it was not possible to care for the elderly in these institutions.

And even now, there are 574 deaths per million people in Sweden. This figure is five times worse than in Denmark and even ten times worse than in Norway. It is true, better than the UK, Spain and Italy, which announced severe restrictions.

Tegnell has now recognized that the death rates in Sweden are not about a common strategy, but rather a failure to prevent a catastrophic spread of the virus in a nursing home.

Many of the victims died in these institutions, and the epidemiologist is outspoken: “Obviously something went wrong there.”

However, the government announced this week that it will finally lift the ban on visiting nursing home residents starting in October. The Minister of Social Affairs, Lena Hallengren, only warned: “There will be risks. I want everyone to act responsibly. “

Death rates in Sweden are not related to overall strategy, but rather to failure to prevent the catastrophic spread of the virus in nursing homes.

For his part, Johan Carlson, Director General of the Swedish Public Health Agency, says the strategy is a success because it has sent a clear and consistent message to the public that everyone is personally responsible for their own safety and that of people with those that interact.

“The point of our approach is for people to understand for themselves why to follow recommendations and guidelines. Until there are vaccines, there are no other tricks. The Swedish people got it,” Carlson said.

Closures are a radical measure

However, experienced Financial Times journalist Wolfang Münchau cautions against being too quick to draw conclusions from the data, which is not complete.

He calls the “biggest fools” who explained this year that the fiercest spread of COVID-19 in Sweden is proof that the decision not to shut down the country’s economy was wrong. But the journalist believes that even now there is no rush to publish summaries that the Swedes were finally right.

“It was wrong to condemn the Swedish strategy in June. It is also wrong to say the opposite now, because the data is not yet complete. It took many years for epidemiologists and biostatisticians to understand precisely the characteristics of the 2003 SARS outbreak. Now the situation is similar, “writes W. Münchau.

It is true that he is opposed to the new restrictions, if they are taken into account. By the way, in the UK, some regions live with limitations again.

“The Swedish figures do not prove anything, they do not deny anything. But a solution as extreme as shutting down the economy requires incontrovertible statistical evidence, not just numbers.

The closure is a radical measure whose consequences have not yet been felt. I have no doubt that inequality will increase, as will the unemployment rate and the number of bankruptcies.

I see the reflection of closing countries as the greatest threat to Western capitalist democracy. The data from Sweden is a much-needed dose of doubt, as there is a well-established understanding that only closures can respond to a global pandemic, ”says Münchau.