Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Sweden and coronavirus

frogwoman the council is closing down the stuff it's running; sportcenters, libraries, the swimming hall, the museum.

re the mine: was no breakdown, planned downtime for yearly overhaul that the company (lkab) decided couldn't be postphoned.

 
NY Times piece:

Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale
Its decision to carry on in the face of the pandemic has yielded a surge of deaths without sparing its economy from damage — a red flag as the United States and Britain move to lift lockdowns.


Ever since the coronavirus emerged in Europe, Sweden has captured international attention by conducting an unorthodox, open-air experiment. It has allowed the world to examine what happens in a pandemic when a government allows life to carry on largely unhindered.
This is what has happened: Not only have thousands more people died than in neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden’s economy has fared little better.
“They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”
The results of Sweden’s experience are relevant well beyond Scandinavian shores. In the United States, where the virus is spreading with alarming speed, many states have — at President Trump’s urging — avoided lockdowns or lifted them prematurely on the assumption that this would foster economic revival, allowing people to return to workplaces, shops and restaurants.


In Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson — previously hospitalized with Covid-19 — reopened pubs and restaurants last weekend in a bid to restore normal economic life.
Implicit in these approaches is the assumption that governments must balance saving lives against the imperative to spare jobs, with the extra health risks of rolling back social distancing potentially justified by a resulting boost to prosperity. But Sweden’s grim result — more death, and nearly equal economic damage — suggests that the supposed choice between lives and paychecks is a false one: A failure to impose social distancing can cost lives and jobs at the same time.
Sweden put stock in the sensibility of its people as it largely avoided imposing government prohibitions. The government allowed restaurants, gyms, shops, playgrounds and most schools to remain open. By contrast, Denmark and Norway opted for strict quarantines, banning large groups and locking down shops and restaurants.

More than three months later, the coronavirus is blamed for 5,420 deaths in Sweden, according to the World Health Organization. That might not sound especially horrendous compared with the more than 129,000 Americans who have died. But Sweden is a country of only 10 million people. Per million people, Sweden has suffered 40 percent more deaths than the United States, 12 times more than Norway, seven times more than Finland and six times more than Denmark.

The elevated death toll resulting from Sweden’s approach has been clear for many weeks. What is only now emerging is how Sweden, despite letting its economy run unimpeded, has still suffered business-destroying, prosperity-diminishing damage, and at nearly the same magnitude of its neighbors.

Sweden’s central bank expects its economy to contract by 4.5 percent this year, a revision from a previously expected gain of 1.3 percent. The unemployment rate jumped to 9 percent in May from 7.1 percent in March. “The overall damage to the economy means the recovery will be protracted, with unemployment remaining elevated,” Oxford Economics concluded in a recent research note.
This is more or less how damage caused by the pandemic has played out in Denmark, where the central bank expects that the economy will shrink 4.1 percent this year, and where joblessness has edged up to 5.6 percent in May from 4.1 percent in March.

In short, Sweden suffered a vastly higher death rate while failing to collect on the expected economic gains.

The coronavirus does not stop at national borders. Despite the government’s decision to allow the domestic economy to roll on, Swedish businesses are stuck with the same conditions that produced recession everywhere else. And Swedish people responded to the fear of the virus by limiting their shopping — not enough to prevent elevated deaths, but enough to produce a decline in business activity.
Here is one takeaway with potentially universal import: It is simplistic to portray government actions such as quarantines as the cause of economic damage. The real culprit is the virus itself. From Asia to Europe to the Americas, the risks of the pandemic have disrupted businesses while prompting people to avoid shopping malls and restaurants, regardless of official policy.
Sweden is exposed to the vagaries of global trade. Once the pandemic was unleashed, it was certain to suffer the economic consequences, said Mr. Kirkegaard, the economist.


“The Swedish manufacturing sector shut down when everyone else shut down because of the supply chain situation,” he said. “This was entirely predictable.”
What remained in the government’s sphere of influence was how many people would die.
“There is just no questioning and no willingness from the Swedish government to really change tack, until it’s too late,” Mr. Kirkegaard said. “Which is astonishing, given that it’s been clear for quite some time that the economic gains that they claim to have gotten from this are just nonexistent.”
Norway, on the other hand, was not only quick to impose an aggressive lockdown, but early to relax it as the virus slowed, and as the government ramped up testing. It is now expected to see a more rapid economic turnaround. Norway’s central bank predicts that its mainland economy — excluding the turbulent oil and gas sector — will contract by 3.9 percent this year. That amounts to a marked improvement over the 5.5 percent decline expected in the midst of the lockdown.
Sweden’s laissez faire approach does appear to have minimized the economic damage compared with its neighbors in the first three months of the year, according to an assessment by the International Monetary Fund. But that effect has worn off as the force of the pandemic has swept through the global economy, and as Swedish consumers have voluntarily curbed their shopping anyway.

Researchers at the University of Copenhagen gained access to credit data from Danske Bank, one of the largest in Scandinavia. They studied spending patterns from mid-March, when Denmark put the clamps on the economy, to early April. The pandemic prompted Danes to reduce their spending 29 percent in that period, the study concluded. During the same weeks, consumers in Sweden — where freedom reigned — reduced their spending 25 percent.
Strikingly, older people — those over 70 — reduced their spending more in Sweden than in Denmark, perhaps concerned that the business-as-usual circumstances made going out especially risky.

Collectively, Scandinavian consumers are expected to continue spending far more robustly than in the United States, said Thomas Harr, global head of research at Danske Bank, emphasizing those nations’ generous social safety nets, including national health care systems. Americans, by contrast, tend to rely on their jobs for health care, making them more cautious about their health and their spending during the pandemic, knowing that hospitalization can be a gateway to financial calamity.

“It’s very much about the welfare state,” Mr. Harr said of Scandinavian countries. “You’re not as concerned about catching the virus, because you know that, if you do, the state is paying for health care.”

 
Sorry, how is Sweden a 'red flag' to Britain? Britain imposed a lockdown, albeit at least a week later than it should have. It is now coming out of that lockdown in much the same way as Denmark, the country that article contrasts Sweden with. Denmark has gone further as it got its outbreak under control earlier, but the timing of the UK's easing relative to the pandemic isn't out of line with those of other European countries. That makes no sense at all.

The NYT has lots of British readers, I guess. That's the only explanation I can see for lumping the UK in with the US in this regard.
 
Not sure I agree that Sweden is the world's cautionary tale anyway. Yes, infection levels there are still high, but deaths have come right down. It miserably failed to keep the virus out of care homes, which was its single biggest failure. Not unlike the UK, which still has a higher per capita death rate. If anything the UK, and increasingly now the US, are the world's cautionary tales.
 
Sorry, how is Sweden a 'red flag' to Britain? Britain imposed a lockdown, albeit at least a week later than it should have. It is now coming out of that lockdown in much the same way as Denmark, the country that article contrasts Sweden with. Denmark has gone further as it got its outbreak under control earlier, but the timing of the UK's easing relative to the pandemic isn't out of line with those of other European countries. That makes no sense at all.

The NYT has lots of British readers, I guess. That's the only explanation I can see for lumping the UK in with the US in this regard.
The UK lockdown; let people arrive from abroad unchecked without enforcing quarentine. Add the lack of testing, tracing and PPE, I suspect the article's referring more to the UK government's half-arsed commitment to containing the virus, which judging by the numbers, was probably closer to Sweden's in comparison to say Denmark's or Germany's.
 
Interview with Anders Tegnell, architect of Sweden’s controversial coronavirus strategy is now up on unherd Youtube channel, linked below.

The video description has a summary of the points he makes, which I’ve screengrabbed below. I’ve just finished watching it. True to form, seems he is unapologetic and continuing to defend his distinctly different strategy. One of the things he said, which I guess I knew already, but it gave me pause for thought - the lower death rate now is partly due to the ICU teams knowing much better how to keep people alive.

Tegnell’s predecessor in role, Prof Giesecke somewhat arrogantly claimed during his earlier interview on the same YouTube channel, that if eschewing lockdown meant more died in Sweden in the early months of the year that they would have died later anyway, and that for this reason other countries’ death rates would catch up in due course. Now it’s quite clear that was total BS.



49A2F9BB-C7BC-43AC-952C-DFAF14583334.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Don't a large number of Swedish businesses close down over the summer though? But that's interesting, there's also evidence that fewer people have actually caught it in sweden than some of the more badly hit EU countries afaik
 
Don't a large number of Swedish businesses close down over the summer though? But that's interesting, there's also evidence that fewer people have actually caught it in sweden than some of the more badly hit EU countries afaik

Mid July into August normally. I’m not sure that would have filtered thru to the figures yet tbh.
 
Interview with Anders Tegnell, architect of Sweden’s controversial coronavirus strategy is now up on unherd Youtube channel, linked below.

The video description has a summary of the points he makes, which I’ve screengrabbed below. I’ve just finished watching it. True to form, seems he is unapologetic and continuing to defend his distinctly different strategy. One of the things he said, which I guess I knew already, but it gave me pause for thought - the lower death rate now is partly due to the ICU teams knowing much better how to keep people alive.

Tegnell’s predecessor in role, Prof Giesecke somewhat arrogantly claimed during his earlier interview on the same YouTube channel, that if eschewing lockdown meant more died in Sweden in the early months of the year that they would have died later anyway, and that for this reason other countries’ death rates would catch up in due course. Now it’s quite clear that was total BS.



View attachment 223373

Some interesting perspectives there. Yes, he comes across as a bit defensive wrt comparisons with Norway and Finland, but he is also right that a lockdown isn't guaranteed to have stopped a major outbreak in Sweden. A lot of luck was involved in where was worst-hit.

Not a popular opinion on here, but I also think the evidence re face masks is pretty weak, and I also don't see the need or point of forcing people to wear them while infection and death rates are falling without doing that.

And he brings up the thing that I haven't heard UK scientists/government mention at all, which is the role of population-level resistance and preinfection-immunity via T-cells. Seems to me that govts are scared to talk about that, but Tegnell is not the first person to mention that it is the best explanation for the infection patterns across the world. There is damage to being too timid regarding this, being too harsh with lockdown and causing health problems that way. So while scientists always stress when they don't know something such as the length of immunity post-infection, as Tegnell says, we can now say that there is 4-5 months minimum pretty much total immunity.

While he may sound a bit callous and too relaxed about ongoing infection levels, he is borne out both by Sweden's figures and those from elsewhere that around Europe at least, the mini-flareups we're seeing now aren't being translated into significant numbers of hospitalisations and deaths. What level of that are we prepared to live with? Tegnell asks some of the right questions, imo. Certainly beats Johnson's 'hope to be back to normal by Christmas' based on really nothing at all aside from hope.
 
Authorities should plan and act on the basis of reasonable worst case scenarios, in most situations they cannot afford to act on other, happier scenarios. Sweden has remained an interesting case, and I will reevaluate my opinion at some point in the coming months once we have seen what happens next.

Both scenarios are alive in my mind, although I will still be somewhat surprised if we get through winter without some shit hitting the fan. And my interest in things like T-cells and other aspects of the possible immunity picture never seem to lead me to the same place as you in regards what things I think we should and should not be doing at a particular moment in time. But thats because we had different attitudes towards pandemics, masks and a whole bunch of other stuff going in to this particular pandemic. And of course my 'instincts' were reinforced by what happened in the first months, while you will probably have found more of interest to your way of thinking later on.
 
For me it's mostly about what questions are being asked, and Tegnell does ask many of the questions I've been asking. eg what is the deal with immunity, and what consequences do the various possibilities have? eg how do you balance the damage of lockdown versus its benefit? I'm not talking about pubs being shut here, more about things like hospital appointments cancelled and social services grinding to a halt. (And, with my sensible head on, to kids who don't go to school for months on end.)

To put meat on that last point, the one concrete example I know about directly, in an emergency housing hostel in Finsbury Park, London, there were a total of eight households by July that were waiting to move out into permanent housing, housing that was lying empty because social services had stopped due to lockdown. The first of those eight households was due to be moved this week. Hopefully the rest will follow, but who knows when? The service is still far from back to normal. That means eight people in need of emergency housing since March have been denied it, and in a city where infection levels were dropping sharply by May. Multiply that story across the country. That means misery and no doubt deaths.

Lockdown in many aspects was done badly, done in a panicked way that itself cost lives, and in many cases the proper assessment of risk is that the risk is greater not to act, but we have risk-averse councils sitting on their hands still, still key staff on furlough, because they know they'll be crucified if they are responsible for a local outbreak, however unlikely that may be, while nobody is saying anything about situations such as that in the above hostel.
 
Last edited:
Lockdown in many aspects was done badly, done in a panicked way that itself cost lives

It should have been done sooner and in a tougher way. But somehow I dont think thats what you are suggesting, you'd probably still like to believe that it was unnecessary and that your instincts to do far too little are the right ones. But then I do tend to file you in the same place in my mind that I file Sweden.
 
Sweden actually did cancel a lot of cancer appointments and 'non essential ' appointments etc (iirc I posted an article about it above) and their government have had a lot of criticism over it.
 
And I hate such criticisms. Unless a country had the power to offer a healthcare system where staff were routinely tested and covid-19 patients were segregated effectively from non-Covid patients, they really had no choice but to do that sort of thing. And even if they had such abilities, which almost nobody did for the first phase, they still had to reconfigure the healthcare system for capacity/staffing reasons.

I would direct any criticisms on that front to later phases, where enormous challenges are faced in trying to restore all the non-Covid 19 health services, deal with the immense backlog whilst still trying to plan for winter, etc.
 
And I hate such criticisms. Unless a country had the power to offer a healthcare system where staff were routinely tested and covid-19 patients were segregated effectively from non-Covid patients, they really had no choice but to do that sort of thing. And even if they had such abilities, which almost nobody did for the first phase, they still had to reconfigure the healthcare system for capacity/staffing reasons.

I would direct any criticisms on that front to later phases, where enormous challenges are faced in trying to restore all the non-Covid 19 health services, deal with the immense backlog whilst still trying to plan for winter, etc.

Yeah I'm not saying the criticisms were justified. Just that it's simply not true to say that everything went on as normal in Sweden and its just lockdown meaning that they couldn't go on as normal. There's arguments that it saved lives because cancer patients and people needing on going treatments are severely at risk from covid. Reading Swedish reports some hospitals were also found to have not separated the covid and non covid patients adequately either although I think that's probably happened everywhere.
 
I doubt many cancer appointments are going ahead as planned in Florida or Rio de Janeiro at the moment. :(
 
Yeah I dont blame Sweden for getting wound up by the repeated suggestion that they'd done nothing much at all, when they were doing some stuff. And the term lockdown is very vague and covers a large number of variations in lockdown detail & enforcement.

I look at the graph of my local hospital and so far I still have cause to wonder whether the steady trickle of deaths there, long after the peak, would have ended sooner if they had gotten on top of hospital infections here sooner. Because since the spike here in deaths and the proper action to deal with the hospital outbreak that caused these deaths, the previous ongoing trickle seems to have ceased.

And yeah, I have low regard for those against lockdown and even greater disdain for those that pretend that under the no lockdown scenario everything they wanted to be normal would be, and that all the negatives are only lockdown related and could have been avoided if lockdown was avoided.
 
Sweden did a lot of stuff like close bars that weren't complying with SD restrictions, stop all but essential travel outside the regions etc. I think they were limited by the constitution in what they could do. They already have the highest rate or one of the highest of people living alone and working from home in Europe as well.

I get the impression looking at friends statuses that some Swedes who were broadly supportive of the government strategy have become wound up by US anti lockdowners sighting them as some sort of role model too.
 
Where I think Tegnell does kind of have a point is the fact that places that seem to have suppressed the virus can get a bit complacent and have it come back. The Swedish argument was that their restrictions were easier to maintain long term while waiting for a vaccine. Of course having a very low population density and a generally high standard of living helps too.

Ironically as it says in the article, Sweden now has tougher restrictions than many countries that have lifted lockdowns. IIRC during the height of the pandemic Swedes were banned from going abroad too.
 
Last edited:
Where I think Tegnell does kind of have a point is the fact that places that seem to have suppressed the virus can get a bit complacent and have it come back. The Swedish argument was that their restrictions were easier to maintain long term while waiting for a vaccine.

This seems to be linked to the widely held view that the worst possible thing would be to have multiple lockdowns, which seems to have been used to justify waiting a longer time before locking down, and taking less stringent measures which are considered to be sustainable over a longer period. But I don't really understand this approach. Having experienced an earlier lockdown and subsequent opening up in China, I would definitely take that and another possible lockdown in future over the lower level continuous lockdown you've had in the UK (I realize that there are many variables when comparing lockdowns, and how 'strict' is probably not the most important one). I would also have thought that people will be willing to take more drastic measures to avoid what seems like an imminent threat of another outbreak, but when faced with something that is much more drawn out, that is when 'fatigue' is more likely to set in.
 
This seems to be linked to the widely held view that the worst possible thing would be to have multiple lockdowns, which seems to have been used to justify waiting a longer time before locking down, and taking less stringent measures which are considered to be sustainable over a longer period. But I don't really understand this approach. Having experienced an earlier lockdown and subsequent opening up in China, I would definitely take that and another possible lockdown in future over the lower level continuous lockdown you've had in the UK (I realize that there are many variables when comparing lockdowns, and how 'strict' is probably not the most important one). I would also have thought that people will be willing to take more drastic measures to avoid what seems like an imminent threat of another outbreak, but when faced with something that is much more drawn out, that is when 'fatigue' is more likely to set in.

Yea I don't disagree with that tbh. I'm not supporting his POV just saying I can kinda see where he is coming from (on that issue anyway). I think Sweden have had a much lower level continuous lockdown and I've read articles saying people are paying less attention to what restrictions there were etc.
 
Interesting early discussions. My quotes deal with the most 'sensational' bit but the nuances come out more in the full article.

In an email sent on March 14th, three days before Sweden closed down upper secondary schools and universities, Sweden's state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell wrote to Mika Salminen, his Finnish counterpart, forwarding an email from a retired doctor who suggested allowing healthy people to get infected voluntarily and in controlled settings.

"One point might speak for keeping schools open in order to reach herd immunity more quickly," Tegnell wrote in the email, published by Swedish freelance journalist Emanuel Karlsten on Wednesday evening.

Salminen replied that his agency had rejected the idea after considering that allowing a spread between children would also increase the rate of spread elsewhere in society.

"We have also considered that, but over time the children are still going to spread the infection," wrote Salminen.

"True," Tegnell replies, "but probably mostly to each other because of the extremely age-stratified contact structure we have".

The emails are interesting because Tegnell has consistently argued in public that as well as generally receiving only extremely mild symptoms, children do not spread coronavirus to any great degree, even to each other, which would mean holding schools open would have little impact on levels of immunity among the general population.

 
Sweden now off the UK govt’s “quarantine when you get home” list, due to relatively low levels of new infections:



Meanwhile UK remains on the Swedish foreign dept‘s blacklist of countries against which non-essential travel is currently recommended, due to infection rates. This means travel insurance is more or less unobtainable/invalidated for trips to UK.

Vindication of Sweden’s “laid back” approach, or just one of the up/down swings in the cyclical nature of this Pandemic? Too soon to tell I would say.
 
Back
Top Bottom