Sweden avoided the locks; two years later, things are not going badly
AWhen the world slips back into lockdown, one word is strikingly absent from the debate. That word is not “freedom” or “proportionality” or “vaccines”. It is “Sweden”.
Britain, which had been an extremist in its refusal to impose restrictions, fell last week and demanded proof of vaccination for indoor facilities and face masks in several situations. Most European countries had already gone much further and ordered curfews, closures and even compulsory vaccination. These measures are defended as the only way to limit a fourth wave, or else as a precaution against the new omicron variant.
A year ago, the consensus was that inoculation of the vulnerable would mean the end of such petty bans. The virus would continue to circulate, just as the Spanish flu virus does, but the death toll would be much lower, in line with other seasonal diseases. We would, we assured each other, “learn to live with it.”
Such talk has dried up. Once again, panicked governments are striving for locks as the most practical weapon in their arsenal. And again, these would mean that you have to spend for these processes.
Nevertheless, there has always been a control in the experiment. Sweden never locked itself. It banned large meetings and imposed certain restrictions on schools, but other than that, it told people to use common sense.
When I say “control in the experiment” I mean just that. If the argument from lockdowners was correct, Sweden would stand out as a sore thumb in any measure of mortality or infection rate.
It does not.
Lockdowns, remember, were not sold as a way to reduce the spread of the disease any more. They were sold as the only alternative to disaster. We were asked to submit to house arrest (something that normally requires a high burden of proof) because everything else would ensure mass death.
Early in the pandemic, researchers from Uppsala University, who adapted Professor Neil Ferguson’s models, predicted that even with a complete lockdown, 40,000 Swedes would die by the summer of 2020; without one, that number would exceed 90,000. The actual death toll that summer was less than 5,000.
Of course, Sweden, like all other countries, has also been hit by subsequent waves. The total number of people killed there is now just over 15,000. But, and this is the key point, Sweden is not an extremist. In European terms, things are slightly lower than average, roughly on a par with Austria and Greece, and well ahead of Italy and Bulgaria. If it were a US state, it would be ranked 43rd out of 51.
We must remember that behind every issue are human tragedies and grieving relatives. Yet it is impossible to argue, based on these figures, that accumulating warlike levels of debt and the cratering of our economies was the only way to prevent mass deaths.
How the tone of the viewing world has changed. A concerted effort is needed to recall the media coverage of early 2020. “Towards Disaster” was the headline on Britain’s right wing Solar. “Leads us to disaster,” the left agreed guard. Time reported that “Sweden’s relaxed attitude towards the coronavirus can already backfire” and quoted a doctor as saying that it “would probably end in a historic massacre.” “We fear that Sweden has chosen the worst possible time to experiment with national chauvinism,” he said. Washington Post. It was “the world’s warning story,” it said New York Times. “Careless,” Germany explained Focus journal. “Dangerous,” said Italy The Republic.
That view was even shared, somewhat improbably, by President Donald Trump. In his attempt to justify his own crackdown, he made the bizarre claim that Sweden “gave it a chance, and they saw things that were really scary, and they immediately went to close the country.”
But no, they did not. Sweden was open. When the predicted disasters did not materialize, international observers tried to find reasons why Sweden was a special case. For example, we were told that it had a low population density. But Sweden, like other rich countries, is largely urban: 85% of the population occupies 2% of its territory. Swedes do not live evenly distributed among the birch forests. They swarm together like the rest of us.
Then we learned that Sweden did less well than Norway and Finland. Well, so what? The claim was not that a shutdown would mildly reduce mortality; it was that it would prevent a total collapse.
And now? Now the world’s media is simply ignoring the rigid Scandinavian state. How else can they live with what they have been exposed to? And the worst thing is that, by refusing to admit their mistake, they condemn their own countries to repeat it.