Since the covid-19 pandemic began, Sweden has separated itself from the rest of Europe by resolutely refusing to shut down. In April this year, when cities around the world turned into ghost towns, Sweden’s city centers did not look too different than normal, with Swedes who could still leave their children to school in the morning and enjoy a coffee with friends this afternoon.

It was not really business as usual, mind you. Gatherings of more than fifty people were banned, employees were encouraged to work from home, university education was moved online and the country’s seniors were urged to isolate themselves. But Sweden’s approach was certainly less strict than the nationwide shutdowns seen elsewhere in Europe. Instead of enforcing new legal obligations on its citizens, the Nordic nation based its strategy on a sense of collective social responsibility – in fact, trusted its people to act sensibly and “do the right thing” to limit the spread of the virus.

Sweden seems to have been able to mitigate the economic blow to small businesses and avoid the onslaught of job losses

To its critics, this approach was completely irresponsible, which put the economy before saving lives. For its supporters, it meanwhile represented a more realistic, long-term strategy – and one that sought to avoid the potentially catastrophic social and economic effects of a national shutdown, including mass unemployment, delayed treatment for non-COVID-related diseases and months of lost education for children and young. While the country’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, has insisted that protecting the economy was by no means the main purpose of the strategy, by allowing companies to remain open, Sweden seems to have fared better than many of its European neighbors when it comes to Covid-19 economic downturn.

Although the country still experienced an economic downturn in the second quarter of the year, with its GDP shrinking by 8.6 percent, this was significantly less than the estimated average for the European Union as a whole, which saw a decline of about 11.9 percent. At the opposite end of the spectrum, meanwhile, the individual European nations that introduced particularly strict locks were hit hard by the covid-19 crisis, with Spain’s economy shrinking by 18.5 percent after implementing arguably the toughest lock in the EU. By keeping society open throughout the pandemic – even with reduced spending when Swedes have adopted voluntary social distancing – Sweden seems to have been able to mitigate the economic blow to small businesses and avoid the onslaught of job losses currently affecting countries around the EU.

Protection at a critical time
So even though the strategy has not worked miracles when it comes to the Swedish economy, with a recession still very much on the cards, its supporters believe that it has come a long way in protecting livelihoods in this critical time. But the strategy has also aroused strong criticism from around the world, which has led the New York Times to label Sweden as “the world’s warning story”. It is undeniable that Sweden has suffered a lower mortality rate than its Nordic neighbors and has registered over 6,000 covid-related deaths since the pandemic began spreading across Europe in early March.

Although this may seem like a lower figure than the tens of thousands of deaths seen in Spain, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, for this small nation with only 10 million citizens, it gives Sweden the fifth highest death toll per capita in Europe. Despite widespread criticism of the strategy that led the country to such a disgraceful ranking, Sweden’s experts and health authorities have stuck to the controversial approach, where Tegnell recently told the Financial Times that nationwide closures are like “using a hammer to kill a fly. ”

With a second wave of covid-19 sweeping through Europe and entire nations restored under strict locks, everyone’s eyes are once again on Sweden to see if the nation changes pace. This time, the nation has sharpened its approach and introduced a restriction for eight people to sit together in restaurants and cafes. As for other recommendations – to avoid public transport and unnecessary shopping – these voluntary guidelines remain, which marks a sharp contrast to the legally enforced curfews and “stay at home” orders seen elsewhere on the European mainland. Shutdowns, by their nature, can only be temporary solutions, and as the spiral cases in Spain, France and the UK seem to show, they only seem to offer temporary respite from the virus.

While governments across the EU have spread the idea of ​​short, sharp, “circuit-breaking” locks, as the months drag on, it is clear that Europe needs to think about its long-term strategy. Swedish politicians have described the pandemic as “a marathon, not a sprint”, and only time will tell whether the country’s lockdown-free strategy can go a long way and pay off in the long run.