There are multiple articles today on the approach taken by Sweden toward COVID-19. I read those in McPaper and the Ex-Quasis. I am not linking to them because the headlines are belied significantly, in my opinion, by the bodies of the articles. Sweden's approach is similar to that of Japan, on which the Ex-Quasis wrote a similar story about a month ago. Sweden is distinguished from other European countries, and from America, in their approach, which has been to not mandate social distancing but rather to "trust" Swedes to practice social distancing responsibly. Sweden has been somewhat more successful than other European countries and the U.S. in containing the virus. However, the mortality rate from the virus in Sweden is, at 12.2%, more than double that of the U.S. Sweden's economy has taken a hit also, and one lower but roughly in line with other countries. The point therefore is that Sweden has done no worse and in fact somewhat better than other countries in limiting spread, although its mortality rate is far higher than in the U.S., with no mandated lockdowns.
However the main takeaway from the two articles, both of which rely on an interview with Anders Tegnell, Sweden's top COVID-19 official, is this: Sweden wants a sustainable COVID-19 strategy; one that you don’t turn on and then off, one that enables you to "live with" the virus long-term. That indeed is different from the U.S. strategy. Like Japan, Sweden decided at the outset that a social lockdown was not feasible; they just were not going to do that to the country or the health care system. And Sweden viewed skeptically the philosophy behind lockdowns. The Swedes and Mr. Tegnell approached it from the end game perspective: When do you know when it's time to reopen?, a question now in the forefront in America. In other words, can you really just turn a society and an economy off suddenly, and then just as suddenly turn it on again? Human beings are not machines or faucets. In addition, once you take the extreme step of a lockdown on a date certain then you're sort of trapped in the box of extreme solutions and a gradual and partial reopening seems to beg the question, would a gradual and partial lockdown have been as efficacious?
The sexy term in the articles is "herd immunity." Britain and Boris Johnson initially went with developing herd immunity and quickly changed their strategy, and Mr. Tegnell is as squirrelly on herd immunity as the next health official. On the one hand, No! My God, no, we do not have a herd immunity strategy in Sweden! On the other hand, having herd immunity would be helpful and, by the way, we Swedes probably will have it in a couple of weeks.
Tegnell thinks about herd immunity as he does social distancing, philosophically and from the end back, not from the beginning forward. We all want a vaccine, yes? Well, isn't a vaccine an extreme form of herd immunity? Yes!, yes it is. If a society was immune as a “herd” of people you wouldn’t have to give an immunization vaccine to them would you? No! Sweden and Mr. Tegnell's philosophical approach to COVID-19 solutions is extremely appealing but its appeal requires ignoring the 12.2% death rate. That no reasonable person can do. The better template seems to be Japan, a densely populated country with twelve times the population of Sweden, yet with only 14,000 COVID-19 cases and a mortality rate of 3.04%.
However the main takeaway from the two articles, both of which rely on an interview with Anders Tegnell, Sweden's top COVID-19 official, is this: Sweden wants a sustainable COVID-19 strategy; one that you don’t turn on and then off, one that enables you to "live with" the virus long-term. That indeed is different from the U.S. strategy. Like Japan, Sweden decided at the outset that a social lockdown was not feasible; they just were not going to do that to the country or the health care system. And Sweden viewed skeptically the philosophy behind lockdowns. The Swedes and Mr. Tegnell approached it from the end game perspective: When do you know when it's time to reopen?, a question now in the forefront in America. In other words, can you really just turn a society and an economy off suddenly, and then just as suddenly turn it on again? Human beings are not machines or faucets. In addition, once you take the extreme step of a lockdown on a date certain then you're sort of trapped in the box of extreme solutions and a gradual and partial reopening seems to beg the question, would a gradual and partial lockdown have been as efficacious?
The sexy term in the articles is "herd immunity." Britain and Boris Johnson initially went with developing herd immunity and quickly changed their strategy, and Mr. Tegnell is as squirrelly on herd immunity as the next health official. On the one hand, No! My God, no, we do not have a herd immunity strategy in Sweden! On the other hand, having herd immunity would be helpful and, by the way, we Swedes probably will have it in a couple of weeks.
Tegnell thinks about herd immunity as he does social distancing, philosophically and from the end back, not from the beginning forward. We all want a vaccine, yes? Well, isn't a vaccine an extreme form of herd immunity? Yes!, yes it is. If a society was immune as a “herd” of people you wouldn’t have to give an immunization vaccine to them would you? No! Sweden and Mr. Tegnell's philosophical approach to COVID-19 solutions is extremely appealing but its appeal requires ignoring the 12.2% death rate. That no reasonable person can do. The better template seems to be Japan, a densely populated country with twelve times the population of Sweden, yet with only 14,000 COVID-19 cases and a mortality rate of 3.04%.
