In Times of Coronavirus, no country was really prepared for the pandemic, and now, even after three months, some still aren’t. Each nation entertained the erroneous belief that their national boundaries would act as an impermeable barrier that would somehow keep the population safe from infection. As the coronavirus spread uncontrollably throughout Europe, countries initially pointed their finger at Italy. However, by mid-March, almost every nation in Europe was obliged to go into some form of lockdown.
One exception was the UK, who thought that confinement was not necessary since the English Channel would provide protection. However, as it turned out, the virus was an excellent swimmer, and the British government was obliged to switch strategies midstream.
The other exception was Sweden, who decided to take a lighter approach and not confine the population. Instead of imposing widespread restrictions, the Swedish government advised citizens to practice social distancing, wash their hands, and stay at home when sick. Public gatherings of more than 50 people were banned, and tables in restaurants were set apart. However, the streets remained bustling, bars were still serving, and primary schools stayed open. Face masks were not considered necessary.
This experiment was feasible because social distancing and a healthy life style have always been an integral part of Swedish culture. In America, where a large percentage of the population is overweight and where walking across a Walmart parking lot is as arduous as trekking along the Camino de Santiago de Compostela, this course of action would have been disastrous.
The Swedish experiment was also viable because there is a bond of trust between the national government and its citizens. The population trusted the government to do what was best, and the government trusted the population to act responsibly.
Needless to say, this could only have occurred in a country such as Sweden, whose citizens showed a commendable level of common sense and good judgment in the face of a serious health crisis. In the United States, requests for social distancing and the use of face masks have often triggered noisy protests and demands to break free from government orders.
In Mediterranean countries such as Spain and Italy, where there is little or no trust in the government and where social distancing is a totally alien concept, confinement was necessary. It was a foregone conclusion that without restrictions, the population would do as they pleased. Rather than social distance, citizens would opt for social proximity unless otherwise obliged.
For the last three months or so, Sweden has conducted its coronavirus experiment with the support of its population, who seem to have mostly followed the government’s recommendations. Now as the coronavirus tidal wave is receding and other countries are timidly beginning to open national borders, all eyes have turned northward.
If indeed there is a second wave later on, Spain and Italy would like to know if the viral storm could be weathered without the need to close everything down again. Was such harsh confinement necessary? We are all hoping that the Swedish experience will provide the answer.
Of course, we know how the great UK experiment turned out. The laboratory exploded in their faces; the death toll soared; and everything had to finally be shut down, even the local pubs. However, in Sweden, where people seem to have been more disciplined, things appear to have gone somewhat better. The strategy has sort of worked but not entirely. It mostly depends on whom you ask. There are now divergent opinions as to its success.
If we look at the numbers, Sweden has certainly done better than Spain, Italy, and the UK (though this was not very difficult). However, in comparison to other Scandinavian countries, in terms of illness and death, it appears that Sweden has paid a higher price for its lighter approach.
As of today, Sweden has suffered 4,939 deaths in a country of 10 million. By contrast, Denmark, Norway and Finland, with a combined population of more than 16.5 million, which all imposed tighter restrictions, have seen only 1,146 deaths. Sweden has reported 460 deaths per million people, compared with 101 for Denmark, 58 for Finland and 44 for Norway. In this regard, Sweden’s scorecard is not impressive.
Up until now, however, Swedish citizens have been very supportive of the government health experts. In fact, when I made a critical comment in April about the death rate in Sweden, a professor from the University of Gothenburg adamantly informed me that I was mistaken. She gave me such excellent reasons why Sweden’s strategy was the best that I thought that she might have a point. But that was in April. Now in June, I am not so sure.
In April, Anders Tegnell, the Swedish Doctor Fauci, affirmed that Sweden’s strategy was largely working. Now in June, he has tempered this statement by stating that too many people have died, and that some of the deaths could have been prevented. He says that the strategy implemented should have been something in-between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done. A few more regulations would have improved statistics.
Even the most fervent proponents of Sweden’s coronavirus strategy admit that the government failed to protect the people in care facilities (something that also occurred in Spain). When visits to nursing home were finally restricted, the horse had already escaped from the barn. The virus had ravaged the elderly, who now account for about half of Sweden’s death toll.
Furthermore, Swedish citizens are now not quite as satisfied as they were before. Support for government policies, which was 63% in April, has fallen to 45% in June. Various scientists have spoken out, and the government plans to create a commission to investigate the country’s handling of the pandemic.
There may be a few reasons for this sudden dissatisfaction. Firstly, it is strange that the number of reported cases and deaths seems to erratically rise and fall. The pattern is unusual and does not echo the usual one with a peak, a plateau, and then troughs. This makes people wonder if there has really been any progress. No one wants this to go on forever,
Secondly, despite the fact that the country has remained open, Sweden has not escaped economic damage. There will still be a deep recession this year since Sweden’s economy is set to shrink 7 percent. More than 76,000 people have lost their jobs since the outbreak began. Unemployment, which now stands at 7.9%, is expected to climb higher.
On the travel front, Swedes have suddenly become social lepers. Many European countries, which are finally de-escalating after a long period of confinement, are looking askance at Sweden because they are not certain whether Swedish tourism would be worth the risk. This is especially true of other Scandinavian countries.
For example Norway and Denmark said they were dropping mutual border controls but would keep Sweden out of a Nordic “travel bubble.” Policymakers in Finland also have expressed skepticism about allowing travel to and from Sweden. Other European countries are also wondering whether to allow Swedes to visit.
So, with the death rate, economy, and travel restrictions, there are some Swedes who are beginning to wonder if the government did the right thing. Nevertheless, it is still too early to contact my friend from Gothenburg and tell her, “I told you so.” The jury will be out for at least a few years.
