[ad_1]
Published:
Keeping the society open for a long time despite closures from the outside world has not benefited Sweden economically.
This is what star economist Lars Calmfors tells the Wall Street Journal.
– Countries with mandatory restrictions have done better, he says.
A long article in the American Wall Street Journal discusses what became known internationally as the Swedish method during the corona pandemic under the title “Sweden ends its pandemic experiment.”
The newspaper claims that fall measures, such as banning more than eight people from public gatherings and homeschooling for high school students, spell the end.
Photo: BJÖRN LINDAHL
People without mouth guards huddle on a platform in Stockholm.
Karolinska’s doctor, Piotr Nowak, who has treated COVID-19 patients, is deeply critical of the actions of the Swedish Public Health Agency.
– The authorities chose a completely different strategy from the rest of Europe and that is why we suffered a lot during the first wave, he tells WSJ and continues:
– We have no idea how they failed to predict the second wave.
It didn’t save the economy
For a long time, there was optimism that the Swedish strategy protected the economy and ultimately promotes public health from a broader perspective. That point of view is now seen by Swedish economist Lars Calmfors. It no longer recognizes Sweden as the strategic and pragmatic country that once saw it. GDP has fallen 8.5 percent and unemployment is expected to be 10 percent by the end of the year, the newspaper writes.
Photo: ERIK NYLANDER / TT
Lars Calmfors, economist.
Fear of the virus along with non-mandatory advice to avoid social contexts has had a negative effect on the market and has damaged both companies and investors’ self-confidence, Calmfors explains to the newspaper.
– Countries that have had mandatory restrictions have done better.
Published:
