[ad_1]
These are some of the conclusions of a recent report commissioned by the Folketing, the Danish parliament.
– The Swedish government has not taken the initiative in the same way as the Norwegian, German and Danish governments, Professor Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen tells DN. He has chaired the group of experts that wrote the report.
“Sweden’s experiences clearly differ from those of the other three countries,” says the report that examined stocks during the first half of 2020.
Sweden then received a much higher proportion of hospital admissions and deaths in covid-19 than neighboring countries (see graph), says the report, which compares the decisions and measures of the countries.
It is mainly in three areas where Sweden deviates. This applies to government actions, covid strategy, and the role and actions of authorities.
Government action
The report reveals how the Danish prime minister’s staff early, around February 11, questioned the reassuring message from the authorities about the low risk of spreading the infection.
– The Danish Prime Minister’s Office plays a central role early in the decision-making process in Denmark. The central role is maintained throughout the period. The Norwegian action is very similar to the Danish action in political engagement. This also applies to conditions in Germany, says Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen.
Actions in the three countries contrast with those of Sweden: “The impression is that the state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who is the department head of the Public Health Agency, largely draws the line before the Swedish public, while the government to a greater extent remains in the background “.
– It is a political stance in Sweden to accept the values that come from the Public Health Agency, says Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen.
Norway and Denmark have a ministerial government and ministers therefore have a greater opportunity to influence than in Sweden.
– It is an exaggerated notion that there is so much difference. The government of Denmark and Norway cannot explain Sweden’s deviant course. In Sweden it would also have been possible to choose a politically dictated course. But they chose not to, responds Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen, professor of political science.
Strategies against covid
The infection control authorities of the four countries had similar contingency plans for a major influenza outbreak. At the beginning, all countries follow the plans and the authorities issue recommendations. But this “is a pandemic of unknown character and scope” and as of March 11, the governments of the countries will act:
“In Denmark, Norway and Germany, the strategy is changing rapidly, with injunctions and bans becoming the mainstays of the strategy. Throughout the entire period, Sweden adheres to the strategy that relies on fewer interventions and information to citizens, ”the research writes.
Neighboring countries deviated from their planned strategies, while Sweden stuck to theirs.
– Yes, Sweden operates within the old plan, although it faces another phenomenon, answers Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen
The governments of the other countries “chose an active policy to defeat COVID-19.” While Sweden “tried to mitigate the social and economic consequences of the pandemic instead of controlling it,” according to the research.
The Swedish strategy “was essentially different from that of the other three countries.” But even though Sweden introduced fewer restrictions, it affected us economically and socially to the same extent as the other three countries, according to the research group.
The role of the authorities
In 2014, Sweden closed the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control, the National Institute of Public Health and parts of the National Board of Health and Welfare and formed the new Swedish Public Health Agency.
The other three countries, on the other hand, have maintained the separation of investigation and administration through separate authorities. In addition, neighboring countries have used other expertise in the past, such as in large hospitals. Therefore, governments have received extensive information and advice prior to their decisions.
That pluralism is important according to the report. That the Swedish government and the Riksdag have relied so much on the advice of the Public Health Agency has not been good.
– In this context, in our opinion, it is a disadvantage. You don’t get the critical tension, in a positive sense, between two different expert bodies, each of which gives advice based on its starting points, responds Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen.
The report notes how the Swedish Public Health Agency’s strategy on volunteerism and personal responsibility during the spring was accepted by the government and all parts of the Riksdag.
– At that time, other competitive values did not reach the decision makers, says Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen.
Social Affairs Minister Lena Hallengren (SocDem) hails that she has not had time to familiarize herself with the report and therefore declines to comment on Wednesday night.
