Sweden’s no-lockdown COVID strategy was largely correct, the Commission proposes
Sweden should have taken tougher early action and the government adopted a clearer leadership when covid-19 hit, although the mostly voluntary non-lockdown strategy was largely correct, said a commission that reviewed the country’s pandemic response on Friday.
Sweden polarized public opinion at home and abroad with its handling of the pandemic, opted out of the shutdowns carried out by many countries and adopted a largely voluntary strategy to promote social distancing and good hygiene.
The Commission – appointed by the government under pressure from the Riksdag – said that Sweden’s broad policy was “fundamentally correct”.
“This meant that citizens retained more of their personal freedom than in many other countries,” the report said.
But the panel of eight experts, including professors of economics and political science, said the government should have taken clearer leadership and acted earlier on measures such as capacity constraints and masks.
“The government should have taken the lead in all aspects of crisis management from the outset,” the commission said in the report. It found that the government was too one-sidedly dependent on assessments made by the Swedish Public Health Agency.
“In February-March 2020, Sweden should have chosen more rigorous and interventionist disease prevention and control measures.”
“Remarkable” delay in quoted indoor caps
The findings could be a debt to the ruling Social Democrats with a parliamentary election in September. More than 17,000 people have died of or with covid-19 in Sweden, much more per capita than among Nordic neighboring countries but fewer than in most European countries that have chosen shutdowns.
Figures from Eurostat show that the country had 7.7 percent more deaths in 2020 than the average for the previous four years, among the lowest mortality rates in Europe.
“In the light of current knowledge … the Commission is not convinced that extended or recurrent mandatory lock-ins, introduced in other countries, are a necessary element in the response to a new, serious epidemic.”
In addition, the report claims that the “right balance” was reached in the education sector. Preschools and primary schools were kept open, with universities and corresponding upper secondary schools switching to distance education.
However, a number of criticisms were leveled at the central government and its main public health authority, including in areas related to preparedness and unclear lines of jurisdiction.
“In a crisis, there must be no uncertainty about who is responsible,” the experts wrote.
Faults were found especially during the first weeks of the pandemic. Unlike many developed and Western countries, Sweden did not order temporary closures of many indoor spaces in early or mid-March 2020, partly pursued by questions about whether there was a legal or legislative basis for doing so.
The Commission said it was “remarkable that it took until March 29, 2020 before the limit for public gatherings and events was lowered to 50 people.”
In April, the country’s daily pandemic reports regularly reported three-digit total deaths in COVID.
Recently abolished Omicron-related restrictions
In January 2021, Sweden experienced another very significant corona wave. The Commission said more could have been done in the autumn of 2020 to prepare for the opportunity that scientific experts had warned about for countries in the northern hemisphere.
“The Public Health Agency should not have dismissed the use of masks as a disease prevention and control measure in indoor environments and on public transport,” the commission said.
Sweden made some adjustments in early January to its approach in light of the Omicron variant’s sweep across large parts of the world, but earlier this month said it was no longer needed. Restaurants and bars are now open, with no time or capacity restrictions.
The country’s health authority said they scrapped large-scale tests because it was considered too expensive for the benefits. Sweden spent the equivalent of about $ 67 million per week on tests during the first five weeks of this year and about $ 3 billion since the pandemic began.