At Arlanda Airport in Stockholm, which arrived on September 17, neither a ‘vaccination certificate’ nor a ‘corona 19 negative confirmation’ was requested. There was only one peculiarity in that the line at the immigration check-up line for European Union (EU) member nationals was shortened faster than that for non-EU nationals. A British woman waiting for her turn in front of the European Union-only immigration window exclaimed, “That’s right, Brexit!” and then lined up behind the reporter again. Fewer people were wearing masks as they went to collect their luggage and board the high-speed train that connects the airport to downtown Stockholm.
2020 is the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sweden has been the subject of worldwide controversy. The Swedish method, which enforced relatively loose ‘social distancing’ and did not close schools, was introduced as a ‘herd immunity strategy’ through the media of various countries, unlike neighboring European countries that have entered into intensive lockdown measures. The goal is to increase the immunity level of the population by inducing the virus to spread in society without taking any quarantine measures to respond to COVID-19. As Sweden’s early COVID-19 death rate surpassed the European average, the Swedish model has been criticized for ‘choosing unproven herd immunity tests and killing citizens’.
In particular, a large number of deaths occurred in nursing homes for the elderly. This led to the establishment of the Corona Kommissionen, an independent body that investigates Sweden’s response to COVID-19. The Corona Committee will be active until February this year and conduct multi-layered investigations such as medical, quarantine, education, and economy as well as protection of the elderly during the pandemic. announced
Why did Sweden respond differently to COVID-19? How does Swedish society evaluate their methods? The 2020 Swedish model was a hot potato, but in fact, little has been said since then.
Professor Jonas Björk of Lund University School of Medicine is an epidemiologist. He participated in the Corona Virus Committee’s quarantine and medical field investigations. The meeting was originally scheduled for September 22 at Lund University’s lab, but the plan had to be changed to a video interview using the ‘Zoom Meeting’ program. This is because Professor Björk was unable to attend school due to COVID-19. On the screen, he appeared to be in good condition. When asked how long the quarantine lasts, he said, “I expect that the symptoms will be gone and I will be able to go to work by Monday of next week.”
‘Sustainability’, not herd immunity
In Sweden, self-quarantine was not compulsory from the beginning. Therefore, there is no set quarantine period. However, the Swedish Public Health Agency has consistently advised people to stay at home until symptoms disappear, as there is a risk of passing the virus on to others when they contract or develop suspected symptoms. Although the recommendations were not enforceable, they were largely followed, as in the case of Professor Björk.
Professor Björk said the perception that Sweden was pursuing herd immunity was a misunderstanding. “The essence of the Swedish strategy was to center on recommendations and solicitations, not coercive guidelines,” he said. This is because forced and extreme measures such as containment work in the short term, but are not sustainable. The quarantine authorities continued to announce recommendations such as, ‘Please stay at home if you have symptoms of Corona’, and ‘The elderly over 70 are at high risk for COVID-19, so please reduce social activities’, and expect citizens’ spontaneity. There were some successes and some failures, but it was basically a strategy based on social trust.”
In 2020, the first year of the pandemic, Sweden’s COVID-19 quarantine index, which was worse than the European average, improved after 2021. Looking back at 2022, Sweden’s cumulative death rate from COVID-19 and the number of excess deaths are lower than the European average. Dr. Anders Tegnel, a national epidemiologist at the Public Health Agency, who led the Swedish quarantine, said in an interview with the Financial Times in November 2021. “It’s been two years since the pandemic started and Sweden doesn’t stand out any more (in various statistics). We’re not the best, but we’re not the worst either. To whom have the strict measures (such as ‘lockdowns’ implemented in other countries) benefited?”
The experts I met during the local coverage also said that what Sweden was pursuing was ‘sustainability’, not herd immunity. Of course, evaluation is not uniform. Joachim Palme, a professor of political science at Uppsala University, said, “The Public Health Administration misjudged the speed of the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. In the view that the pandemic will last longer than it is now, strict measures have been excluded to increase the damage.” On the other hand, professor Helena Svalerud (labor economics) at the same university said, “It was the right choice to treat citizens as mature beings. Recommending quarantine guidelines while providing sufficient information has made the policy more receptive,” she said. The Corona Committee said in its final report released in 2022: “The voluntary measures taken by Sweden were appropriate and, in the opinion of the Commission, safeguarded the liberties of its citizens during the pandemic. But (Spring 2020) a broader and more expeditious intervention should have been taken during the first pandemic.”
A pandemic is not just a health care crisis, it is a huge event that has affected all aspects of life. Your judgment will change depending on where you stand and look at this case. Education, protection of the elderly, social welfare. In Sweden’s response to COVID-19, we will deliver interviews with experts in the field with distinct characteristics.
© EPN