So Sweden's plan was not quite so successful after all?

[goldenharvest]

Now that winter is looming, their rates have rocketed and they are bringing in restrictions. Clearly the advice to socially distance and wash hands hasn't worked.

Still better than the shit show that is the U.K.

Actually, what Stefan Löfven (prime minister equivalent) said was that during the spring people followed the recommendations which was enough to bring the numbers down, this autumn however people are becoming complacent and stricter restrictions are necessary. So the strategy did wirk in the spring and summer but just like everywhere else people began to suffer corona fatigue and became less cautious. Same as over here really.

History will show that the only "successful" countries were those who did a proper closure of their borders, such as NZ and even Isle of Man!

It's run rampant throughout Europe because of the "open border" mentality of the EU which caused countries to think about border controls as a last resort.

Sweden got away with it early on with few restrictions, mostly because of geography & demographics, but now it's spread to them too.

England, Scotland and Wales is an Island. We had the ideal opportunity to control our borders to keep Covid out and put proper quarantine in place where limited travel in/out was essential. That's the mistake we made! There's absolutely nothing we could have done to stop Covid once that opportunity was lost.

@Kazzyhoward Totally agree. It's telling that the strain now detected in the UK is a mutation that occurred in large numbers in an area of Spain, and the Britons simply must have their holiday in the sun regardless of a pandemic!

History will show that the only "successful" countries were those who did a proper closure of their borders, such as NZ and even Isle of Man!

That's much easier in small countries, miles from anywhere. Much more difficult in international hubs such as France, UK, Spain etc.
UK have the additional issue of being a very small landmass, with a large, cramped population.

Sweden has had restrictions since the spring, for example on numbers attending gatherings such as concerts. Also shielding of at-risk groups. Not exactly a lockdown but not fully business as usual.

It's run rampant throughout Europe because of the "open border" mentality of the EU which caused countries to think about border controls as a last resort

Nonsense, UK isn't in the EU, neither is Brazil, USA, Russia or 99% of the world that has suffered severe CV infections & deaths

Most of europe shut down borders long before the UK did, so did the USA, which has some of the tightest border restrictions in the west.

CV was in europe from mid winter, by the time any european country realised, it was too late, all they could do was try an mitigate its effects and the UK (out of the EU & Schengen) has fared the worst.

Their strategy did work in the spring and summer... their numbers were low. The situation is now evolving, as expected in winter, and their strategy is changing (as it should).

Very few countries (if any) have picked one course of action and stuck to it throughout. As the situation evolves, so do the measures. Sweden implementing additional measures now doesn’t mean their ‘strategy didnt work’, it means they’re looking at the evolving situation and reacting to it.

In that case, we should definitely be saying that the UK, Germany, France, Spain etc all massively failed in their strategy too, as cases have rocketed.
Or, you know, winter...

Surely the big win of their approach is that they didn't impose such damaging blanket restrictions and remove fundamental rights (like education and seeing family) from their whole population yet ended up in much the same position as most of the rest of Europe. The deaths in Sweden were mostly caused by a failure to protect care homes, as in the UK.

It isn't a failure that Sweden has not achieved herd immunity. It shows that the virus doesn't necessarily spread exponentially at a rate which overwhelms health services even without lockdowns.

I would think that Sweden is seeing higher cases now due to the seasonal factor, as is the case for most of Europe, rather than any significant change of behaviour. I'm increasingly sceptical that the mildly racist characterisations of different nationality's behaviour have much effect - e.g. the Italians are very touchy feely which is why they had it badly, the British are selfish and don't follow rules, the Swedish are sensible and do follow rules but now suddenly they're complacent. I don't think we have much control over the virus and external factors like temperature, population density and the mutation of the virus which any particular country is dealing with are likely to have a much bigger impact.

And even now the restrictions in Sweden are nothing like as bad as the UK - you are still allowed to meet in a group of 8 which is much more bearable than not being able to see family and friends at all.

I really think if we had chosen a few fairly light restrictions at the start of all of this and stuck with them without changing policy every two weeks we would be in much the same position now with a much healthier and happier population and better economy.

@WhoopsSomethingWentWrong

Very few countries (if any) have picked one course of action and stuck to it throughout. As the situation evolves, so do the measures. Sweden implementing additional measures now doesn’t mean their ‘strategy didnt work’, it means they’re looking at the evolving situation and reacting to it.

Well said!

Whilst it's a perfectly valid source for discussion, I can't help thinking a lot of people are chomping at the bit for Sweden to fail simply because it had the audacity to do something a little different.

I think it's the same for many countries, OP. Canada had very few cases and severe restrictions back before Easter and managed to keep cases and mortality relatively low, but now in some areas it's out of control.

I think what pisses people off is that Sweden was taken as an model to follow by some right-leaning people, when Sweden's demographics, ways of working, public transport use, size of classrooms, etc are very different from the UK's. The same people that are trying to peddle the herd immunity theory on us.

Sweden's plan was never successful, they've done a lot worse than their neighbours throughout. Its not (purely) because its winter now, its winter in Finland too but still not doing anywhere near as badly as Sweden.

@Bellal

Whilst it's a perfectly valid source for discussion, I can't help thinking a lot of people are chomping at the bit for Sweden to fail simply because it had the audacity to do something a little different.

Not at all. It's more a swipe at all the people who refused to comply with our restrictions, citing Sweden as the "poster boy" country, and doing what they hell they wanted because they didn't think our restrictions were necessary!

they've done a lot worse than their neighbours throughout.

Why is Sweden constantly compared only to its immediate neighbours, but no other country is?

I mean, I know the answer, but can’t you see how bizarre it is?

Surely the big win of their approach is that they didn't impose such damaging blanket restrictions and remove fundamental rights (like education and seeing family) from their whole population yet ended up in much the same position as most of the rest of Europe

This really. According to the narrative, they should have had exponential growth and body bags piling up and up. Instead they didn’t fare worse than Europe as a whole and better than many big countries within that. Cases reduced in summer and starting growing again in winter like everybody else.

Because their neighbours are most similar to them in terms of population density, living standards, unemployment protections, general attitude to complying with recommendations etc. It doesn't make sense to compare Sweden to the UK, or Italy, or other countries quite different from it.

Why is Sweden constantly compared only to its immediate neighbours, but no other country is?

Because it makes far more sense to compare Sweden against Finland than it does to compare it against Spain or Italy.

Land borders, similar geography, similar demographics, etc., that's why!

Because their neighbours are most similar to them in terms of population density, living standards, unemployment protections

That’s very simplistic.

Norway is the richest and most protectionist country in Europe, much less dependent on the outside world than Sweden. Vast swathes of Finland will be far less populated than Sweden’s busiest cities. I’m sure there’s a wealth of nuance like this, that no one is taking into account.

Again, I ask you, why are other countries not compared routinely and only to their nearest neighbours?

@Natsku

Because their neighbours are most similar to them in terms of population density, living standards, unemployment protections, general attitude to complying with recommendations etc. It doesn't make sense to compare Sweden to the UK, or Italy, or other countries quite different from it.

Why are we constantly compared to places like New Zealand then?

What do we know about travel links between Sweden and Italy compared to the rest of the Nordic’s for example? Or the number of international businesses based in Stockholm compared to Helsinki?

There are so many variables and we’re not only paying attention to a tiny fraction of them.

@Bushola

Still better than the shit show that is the U.K.

Piers Morgan is that you?

The UK is very rarely compared with ROI for example, it’s nearest neighbour. Because they are very different countries with different geographical and economic challenges.

UK have the additional issue of being a very small landmass, with a large, cramped population.

And an island.

If people had been able to wind in their wanderlust for a year, we wouldn't be here. But having pretty much built half the Western economy on jet setting in large numbers, that was never going to happen.

It was Covid or travel. And as a planet, we chose travel.