Why do people keep mentioning Sweden?

[TheLastStarfighter]

I see so many posts complaining that we should have done what Sweden did because they didn't have a lock down, and hardly had any deaths.

I thought that sounded great! Until I looked into it and found out that it doesn't seem to actually have been the case.

www.newscientist.com/article/2251615-is-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-a-cautionary-tale-or-a-success-story/

• There was a lock-down, although it was voluntary and not enforced by law.
• Their rate of death was relatively high.
• They haven't achieved herd immunity.
• Their economy was less effected, but relies less on tourism.
• Population density in Sweden is massively less than in the UK, so a tricky comparison anyway

What have I missed? What makes Sweden's approach better, or with a better outcome?

People always do this, best to ignore. Different Country, different set up, different culture.

Sweden are doing relatively well at the moment, so people will be comparing us to them. It used to be New Zealand. Anything to make out we're crap.
Apparently we're observing Belgium's tactics now. They've had some success in reversing their surge, and our society and culture is more similar to theirs than Sweden, so it makes sense.

I don't know to what extent we could have done a Sweden. However not having a lockdown must mean they don't have a furlough scheme to pay for. Is that right? If so then do those who say they are not economically better off take that into consideration?

Anything to make out we're crap.

This. In time we'll see who held up best - in the long term it will be those who still have a functioning economy. Those with economic collapse will see significant morbidity due to families collapsing into poverty.

The reason people keep mentioning Sweden was because before lockdown we were following a similar approach. Then we locked down completely and we now have all the associated problems with opening things up safely, lockdown is Sweden was much softer. There also hasn't been a plethora of laws in Sweden - much more guidance on things and an emphasis on personal responsibility and choice (which I have to say I would welcome). I do wonder if we would have been better adopting this approach rather than legislating against everything in a way that isn't enforceable

I would say that one huge positive of Sweden's approach has been that they adopted a position and a set of guidance and have pretty much stuck to it from day 1. As a result trust in the Government and public health officials there is high where as here it has been damaged by perceived over complication, u-turns and "flip flopping" on various issues.

I'm not sure following Sweden would have been appropriate with our particular set of attributes but the way they have approached it overall (as opposed to the particular steps they have taken) has merit in my view.

Agree with @Sunshinegirl82

Sweden's death rate is actually a mixed bag - they didn't do well enough at protecting care homes, but if you adjust for that they are not so bad, probably because people did a lot of voluntary social distancing, particularly the very at risk groups.

Their leaders have acknowledged that some things went well (the messaging, their general approach to letting the young do sensible mixing) and some things didn't (care homes), which is also honest and straightforward, which I imagine means people are still trusting of public health messages and more able to follow them long term.

Sweden accepted the fact that a virus that was spread widely in the entire community wasn't going to be eliminated and so instituted sensible, sustainable guidance to control infections while allowing people to get on with their lives. As a result their infection rate is now lower than Norway and Denmark.

Closing down for a while then opening up again is pointless - all it does is confuse the situation, destroy the economy and delay infections. Having an ongoing, sustainable level of infections while still allowing as much normality to continue as possible is far, far more sensible. Sweden doesn't have changes in laws and regulations every couple of weeks, it just has a very clear set of basic guidelines that everyone can easily follow.

All the nonsense about them having higher deaths than their neighbours is going to be irrelevant when Norway and Denmark eventually catch up with them. The numbers won't be any different in the long run, just the timing. In the meantime Sweden won't have a massively depressed and demotivated population exhausted from constantly changing restrictions and bans on them seeing their own families.

From what one hears North Korea is doing incredibly well with regards to Covid, but I'm glad we haven't adopted their approach.

Because Sweden was the poster boy for the AD lot, used again and again to prove how we should have done it. Only some don't appear to want to acknowledge that the Swedish Government have admitted that they should have locked down more vigorously with regards to care homes and the vulnerable.

As PP have said it's a mixed bag and not easily translated to make a comparison with the UK. We will only find out what worked best when it's over.

Swedish society is generally much more 'community' minded - it is also a much less densly populated country - the gap between rich and poor is less wide......they have a higher funded health service and less overcrowded housing, all things that seem to have an impact on outcomes from Covid..

If we were the same in all dimensions then you could compare....

maybe we'll get to swedish level of taxation and NI equivalent to pay for all of the measures that have been implemented here!

It wouldn’t translate well here because we don’t have the same sense of collective social responsibility that Sweden does. It’s the same reason that we don’t have their tax system, or their childcare system and we wouldn’t have trialled universal basic income (if covid hadn’t happened).

And I think that applies to both businesses and individuals.

I doubt that anybody who is complaining’s day to day life would look particularly different if they were in Sweden. It’s just that people think it would.

X posts with averythinline.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

It wouldn’t translate well here because we don’t have the same sense of collective social responsibility that Sweden does. It’s the same reason that we don’t have their tax system, or their childcare system and we wouldn’t have trialled universal basic income (if covid hadn’t happened).

And I think that applies to both businesses and individuals.

I doubt that anybody who is complaining’s day to day life would look particularly different if they were in Sweden. It’s just that people think it would.

Statements like 'we don't have the same sense of collective responsibility as Sweden' baffle me. People have accepted and followed guidance and laws from Boris Johnson, one of the stupidest men alive, on the belief that it will protect other people. They have lost their jobs, stopped seeing their own family members, suffered increased rates of mental and other illnesses and so on on the belief that it was all necessary. Even when Boris's own hench man blatantly flouted the rules, people still followed them, largely because no matter what British people seem to want to think about themselves, they are not stupid and they understand how to avoid getting ill. They would still understand that even without stupid laws saying that six people from different households can meet but a family of six can't see any other people. Trusting sensible adults to make good decisions is a basic part of a functioning, healthy country. Putting in laws that the lawmakers who no intention of following, that are impossible to police and that cause confusion and suffering, is ludicrous. And yet people are willing to accept the situation on the belief that they are too childish for it to be otherwise. Where is British people's self respect?

Sweden is still in a soft lockdown. My 73 mum, who lives in Sweden, still can't meet people indoors at all and is not meant to be doing her own food shopping or visit indoor restaurants. The under 70s are meant to be cautious with the above and keep a distance, use gels in shops etc but can meet people indoors provided they are free of symptoms. Re work, my brother is still working form home as are many other office based workers.

That said, Sweden are much stricter on staying home with even the mildness of cold symptoms. Even sore throat or sniffles.

One interesting thing is that antibody testing had been free this summer which has meant a lot of people have been able to check if they have antibodies and if they have then they are then allowed to mix with vulnerable or elderly relatives. Some care homes even allow indoor visits if you have antibodies.

There is currently an average of 1 death from Covid19 a day in Sweden and there were a total of 13 people in ICU being treated for Covid, as of yesterday, in the whole of Sweden.

As a result their infection rate is now lower than Norway and Denmark.

That's not correct though:

ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-7-day?tab=chart&year=latest&time=2020-07-31..2020-09-10&country=DNK~NOR~SWE&region=Europe

mobile.twitter.com/MarkkuPeltonen/status/1301860609219334144

Sweden are also doing significantly less testing:

At 05 Sept, Tests, last 7 days:

Denmark: 213,734
Norway: 91,327
Sweden: 29,413

Tests per million people, last 7 days:

Denmark: 36,812
Norway: 16,912
Sweden: 2,875

Denmark tested 13 times more people, Norway 6 times more people.

They found more cases because they're looking for them.

Sweden are also less diverse than the U.K., which also appears to have been a factor.

Because their epidemic seems almost over whereas we are stuck like this for at least the next 3-6 months and quite probably longer as no vaccine is imminent.

Sweden let the virus spread slowly among non-vulnerable groups and did not panic when 20 year olds were positive. They now seem to have reached a point where the virus is steadily decreasing and the percentage of positive tests are very low. They hope to move to a normal life by Christmas - including for the elderly - while we are stuck like this for the indefinite future.

The level of deaths may be ‘relatively’ higher than Norway, but in absolute terms and per head of population it is very low. And one-tenth of what Neil Ferguson predicted.

I agree it’s too early (and probably stupid) to play the whole did best’ game.

However, the positives of Sweden’s approach are as following.

Avoided massive borrowing in shutting businesses down

Minimal disruption to children’s schooling.

Got its population on board strongly and behind the guidelines

Avoided a big surge as the country opened up.

I suspect we might all end up following Sweden’s approach in the longer term. Eradication isn’t a feasible goal. Lockdowns are a hugely costly and only temporary fix. They played the longer game from the start and it’s looking like we all need to do that.

All countries that gave CV a way into an elderly population ended up with significant deaths, regardless of the severity of their lockdown. This is the thing to crack. The antibodies point is a good one.

I don't know to what extent we could have done a Sweden. However not having a lockdown must mean they don't have a furlough scheme to pay for. Is that right? If so then do those who say they are not economically better off take that into consideration?

It's not right. There is the equivalent of a furlough scheme. The rules have changed so people who are isolating get sick pay from day 1. And now, finally, there is compensation for vulnerable people who need to stay home to stay safe.

All the nonsense about them having higher deaths than their neighbours is going to be irrelevant when Norway and Denmark eventually catch up with them. The numbers won't be any different in the long run, just the timing.

It's not nonsense, it's a fact. Hypothesing that Norway and Denmark "will eventually catch up with them" is not a fact. They may or may not, but it's not accurate to say they will as if it's inevitable.

'Front loading' your deaths at the beginning of a Pandemic involving a new disease is likely to put you at a disadvantage because it's not inevitable that other countries will 'catch up' later when much more is known about the disease, they have had time to scale up testing and tracing, there is more knowledge on how best to control it, how best to treat it and new and better treatments become available as does the possibility of a vaccine.

The rules have changed so people who are isolating get sick pay from day 1.

That’s not a furlough scheme, that’s a sickness policy.

Stockholm has a higher population density than London.

That’s not a furlough scheme, that’s a sickness policy.

I didn't mean that it was a furlough scheme. I meant they've done that as well as the furlough scheme. I was listing the measures.

Only on MN do you hear advocacy for replicating the approach of a country different to ours in every way in almost the same breath as 'you do you, I'll do me'