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?

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

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

Everyone who is showing any symptoms gets tested in Sweden now, same as Denmark and Norway. They found more cases because more people are falling sick in those countries.

I think the point that Sweden proves is that the half a million dead if we don’t lock down threat was completely unfounded. Regardless of the specifics Sweden hasn’t seen out of control exponential growth of the virus, their cases and curves have followed very similar trends to countries who enforced a strong lockdown (obviously with some variations due to population density etc). If this virus was as deadly as we were led to believe then there would have been mass death in Sweden on a scale significantly higher and more dramatic than other countries who locked down.

As other people have mentioned above Sweden didn’t resort to law changing and enforcement (I believe their constitution prevents this?) but instead tried to work with their population, stuck to one message and plan the whole way through and took into account the whole picture rather than just the fear of the virus. Our government in comparison has continually flip flopped around, bowed to public pressure, copied whatever other countries are doing, shut down our entire health service etc with seemingly no real regard for anything other than corona. The economy, public health, personal liberty etc have all been compromised and when you look at Sweden is seems that out approach has had very little gain in comparison to the other options

Only history will show a true comparison with any other country.

The problem with a pandemic in modern times is that it takes time to see what's working, time to bring things under control, time to understand what you are dealing with, time to evaluate approaches, time to test and apply theories and time to for a response to evolve and react to the new information that will constantly present itself and the modern world really hates things taking time. We want answers now, we want solutions that work instantly we want to go back to normal as of yesterday and our economies and societies are set up to expect things to happen now now now. Our wants are normal however we should be tempering our expectations with the reality that it's going to take time and that should be led by government - unfortunately leadership is not this lots strong point so the mixed messages will continue to cause chaos and people will still be frustrated that they can't go back to normal right now or even be given a definitive date for that to happen.

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.

But it’s over because of guidelines on limiting social interaction that people are largely sticking to.

I suspect that if businesses encouraged as many people to work from home as much as possible, people avoided public transport as much as possible, avoided large gatherings (even if they are allowed), maintained social distancing as much as possible and stayed at home at the slightest sign of illness however mild, we’d be a lot better position than we are now. Particularly if shops, restaurants and pubs that were allowing too many people in and not ensuring social distancing was maintained were closed.

A lot of that was in the UK guidelines, but not the legislation.

I do think the government did a particularly poor job at getting the message that we should still be restricting social interactions and not meeting up with lots of different people over short periods of time across.

I think the point that Sweden proves is that the half a million dead if we don’t lock down threat was completely unfounded.

How exactly does it prove anything? They have a significantly lower population density, so you can't possibly compare them to our densely populated island and claim they are proof of anything.

Anders Tegnell, Swedish chief sciencey bloke, said that the Swedish approach is simply the previously agreed scientific pandemic response. Sweden is just following the well established path, it's other countries which have gone off piste.

the Swedish approach is simply the previously agreed scientific pandemic response.

Yes, the previously agreed response. For Sweden. We are not Sweden.

They have a significantly lower population density, so you can't possibly compare them to our densely populated island and claim they are proof of anything.

Most of Sweden is unhabited though. As I said earlier, Stockholm has a higher population density than London.

Yes, the previously agreed response. For Sweden. We are not Sweden.

No, the established protocol for handling a pandemic according to the WTO.

The UK were following the same established protocol until they panicked and locked down.

@FatCatThinCat

They have a significantly lower population density, so you can't possibly compare them to our densely populated island and claim they are proof of anything.

Most of Sweden is unhabited though. As I said earlier, Stockholm has a higher population density than London.

You can't equate two whole countries on the basis that their capital cities are similar.

Thanks for the information on Swedish furlough. I wonder how well used it was. I guess what I am thinking is that if you don't completely lock down you don't end up supporting as many jobs as we had to with the attendant costs. So even if the Swedish economy slowed down due to the virus, the Swedish people won't be paying back the costs of a huge furlough scheme.

You can't equate two whole countries on the basis that their capital cities are similar.

Just like you can't compare population density on the basis that their entire land mass is different.

I get it. You're right. Britain is doing a fantastic job. The best, world beating coronavirus response in the entire universe and any comparison to any other country that did it differently is invalid.

Thanks for the information on Swedish furlough. I wonder how well used it was.

To be honest I haven't followed it very closely. I know that like many other countries they're now investigating companies who are thought to have taken the piss.

@FatCatThinCat

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

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

Everyone who is showing any symptoms gets tested in Sweden now, same as Denmark and Norway. They found more cases because more people are falling sick in those countries.

It's a very short snapshot in time though, on September 8th Sweden had more cases per capita than Norway, on September 3 they had more than Norway and Denmark, yesterday Denmark and Norway had more although the difference between Sweden and Norway was minimal.

ourworldindata.org/grapher/new-covid-cases-per-million?tab=chart&year=latest&time=2020-09-01..2020-09-10&country=DNK~SWE~NOR

So you could cherry pick a specific day or week to show more cases in one or the other, but what matters is the longer term trend over time and how they will do going into Autumn and Winter, which we don't yet know.

It's only in the past 7 days that cases in Norway and Denmark have been higher than Sweden (7 day rolling average, per million people), before that they have been higher (often significantly higher) for the entire duration of the pandemic (bar one 7 day period last month when cases in Norway were about equal).

ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&year=latest&time=2020-08-01..2020-09-10&country=NOR~SWE~DNK&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=total_deaths&pickerSort=desc

So only looking at the past 7 days is cherry picking one small set of data and ignoring all the rest. And it doesn't mean that trend will continue...it might, be we don't know that yet.

Stockholm has a higher population density than London.

It may depend on how the geographical boundaries of London or Stockholm are defined, but I thought it was the other way around - London population density was about 3 times higher than Stockholm?

(Population density in any case, being only one comparitive factor).

The best, world beating coronavirus response in the entire universe and any comparison to any other country that did it differently is invalid.

But. It. Is. Not. PROOF.

Proof would require a proper study, which doubtless will come in time but has not yet happened. It is conjecture, or at best a reasonable hypothesis. But not proof.

There are many factors beyond population density, look at the risk factors for covid - age, health status, ethnicity, sex etc. We are two different populations.

Population density is not the only comparator re Stockholm. For example, London's mass transit system is considerably more crowded.

Britain is doing a fantastic job. The best, world beating coronavirus response in the entire universe and any comparison to any other country that did it differently is invalid.

Straw man argument, as nobody is saying that, not the first part anyway.

I am fascinated reading the discussion on here, but don't really have much to add.

Other than some facts:

• The population density of Stockholm and London are almost identical (of course London is 8 times as big and has 8 times the people, but the actual population density of the cities is almost the same).
• The rest of Sweden is on average much, much more sparsely populated than the UK. In total they have about twice the area of the UK, but only 15% of the people.

I never preferred Sweden's strategy for reasons OP believed in, as listed in the first post.

I preferred because it's more sustainable & more realistic & likely to cause fewer net harms (imho); I believe that a similar strategy would have worked in UK. It's possible that long term (by end of 2024 for instance) the Swedish strategy may have resulted in many fewer excess deaths per 100k than other countries. I don't live in Sweden, I don't have any influence, the majority of UK people didn't agree with me, so it doesn't matter what I prefer, of course.

Mostly I only encounter mention of Sweden's strategy from people who are angry about it (not living in Sweden). They want to criticise and be angry, I guess.

I don't understand why Sweden is only compared to DK & NO, not compared to Finland, Russia or Netherlands. But it doesn't matter what I think, anyway.

A lot of people who think strict Lockdown measures are too costly are complete nutjobs in their other beliefs. I don't want to be allied with them.

@TheLastStarfighter

Totally agreed re population density. But the cities are very different in terms of size and housing, so it isn't a great comparator. In a small sized city, it is far more likely that people will be walking rather than squashed into trains.

[quote wishcaptainbarnaclewasmyboss]@TheLastStarfighter

Totally agreed re population density. But the cities are very different in terms of size and housing, so it isn't a great comparator. In a small sized city, it is far more likely that people will be walking rather than squashed into trains. [/quote]
Yes, completely agree.