There is something about Sweden

The jury is still out on Sweden’s novel approach to dealing with the coronavirus. On the one hand, there are those who have already proclaimed it as an unmitigated disaster. Pointing to the high death rates in the country – almost 3,000 in a population of a little over 10 million – they draw comparisons with Scandinavian neighbours that have enforced strict lockdowns (for example, Norway and Denmark) and have witnessed much lower death rates. But it is important, as others have pointed out, to look beyond this mere data point. First, a staggering number of deaths in Sweden (about 50 per cent) have occurred in sequestered old age homes, which makes the link between the country’s decision not to lock down and overall mortality somewhat tenuous. Moreover, the death rate in Sweden is lower per million than it is in a few European countries such as Spain, Italy, and most notably Belgium, which has also been racked with death in old age homes.

While there is no argument that Sweden’s COVID-19 experience has been far from good, there is a reason why many eyes are locked firmly in the country. With businesses, educational institutions, and restaurants open, the economy and ordinary life have not been disrupted the way it has in most other countries. There are restrictions of course (no gatherings of over 50 people for instance), but the broad thrust of the strategy has been predicated on trust – on the belief that people will voluntarily adhere to the government’s advisories on social distancing.

How is the strategy, which is based on allowing some exposure to the virus in order to shore up immunity, working? While it has failed to contain the death rate, a fact Sweden admits, there are signs that the death rates are plateauing in parts of the country. Also, the country’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell has claimed that herd immunity will kick in soon in some places. The herd immunity strategy was condemned when the United Kingdom seemed to adopt it before abandoning it in the face of WHO’s advisories and critics who upbraided what they regarded was a right-wing approach. Some of this derision has softened now.

While cautioning it was too early to judge whether Sweden’s approach was successful or not, WHO’s Executive Director Michael J Ryan recently commended its strategic controls and said its commitment to trust people could be the template of the future. With lockdowns failing to prevent incidence and death rates elsewhere in the world, it is no surprise that there is a new interest in Sweden. How it fares in the next couple of weeks may determine how other countries approach the virus in the coming months.