Why did Sweden decide to act differently?

[tontie]

Sweden is an outlier, any ideas as why they decided to do things differently? protect the economy or because they think this is the best long term strategy?

He did indeed say that, which is pretty worrying as he seems to equate 'herd immunity' with 'majority have had it and haven't died'. Because we don't even know if herd immunity is possible yet.

And if that wasn't bad enough, they still haven't put anything in place to protect high risk people beyond banning visiting old peoples' homes. So my high risk daughter is still teaching every day, completely un protected.

I wonder if Sweden has the same adversarial political system where there is parties in opposition like we have here. Other countries seem to have more of a coalition of several parties. That could be why the government has more acceptance.

Sweden's government is usually a coalition government and the culture is much more collabrative than adversarial.

LittleLittleLittle "The alternative is to start doing testing and contact chasing" how is that an alternative to the other two main options and how would it work?

Someone gets sick, you test them and they have the virus. You ask them to name all the people they have been near in the last week or two including in supermarkets and maybe the tube....

Even if by some magic you could find those people what happens then? You tell them that they had at some point in the recent week or so been near an infected person...then what?

I’m really undecided about the whole thing.

The place I keep coming back to is that if it is a fact that the lockdown is only “saving lives” because without it the NHS would be overwhelmed then the total number of people who contract the virus will ultimately be the same lockdown or no lockdown. It’s just a question of whether they contract it all at once or slowly over a period of time.

Presumably, if the same numbers will end up contracting the disease under either approach then (providing the health system is not overwhelmed) it makes little difference to the number of deaths which approach you go for?

The immunity issue is obviously troubling but from what I’ve read it does seem much more likely than not that there is at least some short term immunity following infection. Surely if the body is simply incapable of retaining any immunity to this virus then a vaccine will also fail.

The lockdown isn’t actually to stop people getting the virus at all as I understand it.

Obviously if you delay cases and in the intervening period a treatment or vaccine is discovered you may benefit more from slowing the spread however it seems unlikely that anything will be along in the next few weeks or months that will have a significant impact.

I’m in no way shape or form an expert on any of this so if I’m missing something fundamental I’m happy to be corrected! I’m just musing whilst I try to get the baby to sleep!

Sunshinegirl82 I'm no expert either, but as far as I know those are the main points. There's also the hope that the virus will mutate and become less dangerous. I have no idea how fast that happens though.

Oh and I just remembered wasn't it supposed to spread less effectively in warm weather?

Not sure they think warm weather affects it now , that’s the problem too many unknowns at present

Bizarrely, Stockholm has a larger population density per kilometre than London. Sweden will be a study of how to manage a pandemic, that is for certain.

The only difference is that restrictions don’t have the full force of the law.

I would not go that far. Sweden's economy will come out of this a lot better off than most others. They will still have to go through recession though. Just less severe.

Sweden is doing fine. Cases are coming down along with the rest of Europe despite not closing schools or pubs

Sweden are interesting and also brave, but is looks like it could work for them.

Predictions reported in The Times this morning is that Sweden could reach herd immunity by next month which would be a game changer and could reinforce the hawkish politicians here wanting us to run hot to get to that point as long as the NHS isn't overwhelmed. We will only truly know next year really.

They said "parts of Sweden".

We shall see.

If they do bring this off and if a vaccine is a long way off, this could raise some questions about how this process was handled elsewhere.

Very interesting to see if they achieve herd immunity soon. What I find impressive is that scientists were allowed to implement what they deemed to be the best strategy without being swayed by public opinion/fearmongering. It was the initial strategy here too but social media/non-scientists held too much sway, although our demographic is slightly different (more cross generational living under one roof). The truth is the same number of people will get it eventually, although climate and better knowledge of how to treat patients even without a vaccine argue for a possible delay, whereas damage to the economy (and hence lives) argues against such a delay. Sweden has a very well developed sense of social responsibility, people are more insular anyway over much of the country. I lived there for 3 years many moons ago and miss the common sense and pragmatism of the people.

Someone gets sick, you test them and they have the virus. You ask them to name all the people they have been near in the last week or two including in supermarkets and maybe the tube..

No the idea is you contact people who've been in close contact with for over 15 minutes only. If you can reach 80% of those people you can make a significant impact on spread. But if you also add in people using an app then you can even reach some of the others that person has had brief contact with, e.g the person they sat next to on the tube. And if you get everyone wearing facemasks, the possibility of having infected someone drops anyway.

Very interesting! I personally think that we should be approaching things like Sweden - possibly we didn't have the capacity to manage this immediately from a health system so lockdown was needed in order to get our house in order.

The U.K. government did try to test people on this by trying to do a "Sweden", but firstly people went a bit mad on Mother's Day and secondly they were crucified by the media and public opinion by not doing enough.

You only have to look at some of the views on here to think that people have gone a bit mad. I saw a thread the other day when a woman was saying that the second toilet in her house had broken but she couldn't get it repaired because it wasn't "essential" in the sense that the five people in her household could all share the one that they had. A tradesman could easily work in a toilet at a distance to others, you could wait a couple of days and then clean and spray it before using it. Low risk activity IMO.

I think that most Swedes are capable of understanding the difference between doing lots of socialising for the sake of it and trying to keep a semblance of real life and preserve as much of the economy as possible whilst trying to reduce risk. People are also totally hysterical about whether they are vulnerable or not and the school threads are batshit.

Honestly, I think that the only reason to be locked down is if the health system can't cope and only for long enough to build that capacity, after that sensible social distancing measures should be taken - some on here will claim that this amounts to eugenics, but I think it is the only thing that is economically sustainable.

I am obviously a terrible person though. I socially isolated for 2 weeks and have been shopping once in three weeks, reordering my life around getting deliveries instead so that my nanny can come. We work from home as does my nanny's partners and we all self isolate if anyone has symptoms or needs to mix with others (I had to go to a funeral last week so nanny not coming this week). This is permitted under government guidance, but people on here would scream "no mixing of households" at me. Personally, I think this is far better and more justifiable than furloughing my nanny, driving myself into the ground trying to work with a toddler and claiming the cash back off the treasury as a reward for myself to be added to all of everyone else's taxes in the long run. Perhaps I should be Swedish!!

There are obvious limitations to lockdowns that people seem completely unwilling to consider in the UK and on MN in particular.

Post-lockdown spikes are inevitable, there's a pent-up socialisation demand that is going to be released like a spring. Which is why Raab's five conditions are farcical at the outset.

I don't see how testing/contact tracing could work in the UK, in London anyway. The problem is absolutely intractable by now.

Sweden had the right idea.

@marginalgain

I agree that a surge in infection levels is inevitable post lockdown. My concern is that there is no messaging about a realistic post lockdown picture from the government.

The current guidance seems to have been interpreted by many as being “stay at home until it is safe however long that might be because the plan is for no one to catch the virus”. I’m not sure that’s the correct interpretation.

My interpretation has always been “stay at home until we are in a position to provide hospital care to all those that require it”. I have every expectation that I will probably get the virus and I am fairly relaxed about that.

If Sweden pull this off then questions will definitely be asked. It has taken a lot of courage to stick to a plan that deviates from the majority,

Unfortunately you will not have a sensible debate in the UK about herd immunity. It's a biological reality, viruses lose steam as their available pool of hosts dwindles, it's not some form of government cleansing programme.

@Sunshinegirl82

Yes, that is exactly it! The BBC have been pretty horrendous - they reported the government advice as "don't go to work unless your job is essential" on the 10 o clock news and have basically pressed the government into a position where this is pretty much the case by haranguing them with sad face cases on the news about employers not having done enough to ensure that all employees absolutely can socially distance at all times at work. This is not what employers were actually intended to be required to do under the guidance - it is the media and Public Health England on a frolic, supported by the government's political opponents (Sadiq khan lobbying to close all building sites, for example)

This is not really what the government intended, but it has led to massive compliance and probably to the curve falling quicker, which is a good side effect. The difficulty is telling people that actually they are relatively safe to go back to work provided that they socially distance wherever they are able to when they have been scared into submission like this.

I didn't vote for the government, I think they have been caught napping on PPE BUT I think our press have an awful lot to answer for. In Germany, they have effectively set an implied additional infection and death rate per day that they are comfortable with to open the lock down. In France, macron apologised to the french people for certain things being a bit slow. If any of our leaders did this they would be publicly crucified in a trial by media.

Yes, that is exactly it! The BBC have been pretty horrendous - they reported the government advice as "don't go to work unless your job is essential" on the 10 o clock news and have basically pressed the government into a position where this is pretty much the case by haranguing them with sad face cases on the news about employers not having done enough to ensure that all employees absolutely can socially distance at all times at work. This is not what employers were actually intended to be required to do under the guidance - it is the media and Public Health England on a frolic, supported by the government's political opponents (Sadiq khan lobbying to close all building sites, for example)

Correct!

I live in New Zealand. Our PM started lockdown early and closed the borders early.

Sweden is a large country with small population density, as is New Zealand. Sweden has about twice the population of New Zealand.

Let's check the numbers:

Sweden:
Cases: 13833
Deaths: 1511

New Zealand:
Cases: 1431
Deaths: 12

I'd much rather live where I live.

Does anyone have a theory on how people are catching this in a supermarket? I'm reading that over 15 minutes of contact with an infected person is considered risky and being coughed on/sneezed at. Picking it up on hands and then touching your face. Quite a few posters on here say they have symptoms but have only been to a supermarket. Either they have a different virus, or have been extremely unlucky. We're all being careful to wash hands and use sanitiser. Some are wiping or quarantining shopping. We would know if someone coughed or sneezed near us. What are you thoughts?

We''ll go back to a firm handshake

No, we won't. Have you learnt nothing from the advice on how to avoid spreading the virus?

Yes but what will happen next for New Zealand? I don't have the answers but you are likely to get a spike in deaths and cases as you ease restrictions. Sweden might just have got their spike out the way

It’s obviously fantastic if deaths in NZ are low now and never rise. The difficulty will be how that is maintained long term although I’d imagine a sparsely populated island nation has a better chance than most. I really hope so.

I suspect the honest answer is that no one will know who has done the “best” for at least a year, probably several years.