Did Sweden defeat the pandemic by refusing to shut down? No, its record is catastrophic
During large parts of the pandemic, Sweden has stood out for its seemingly successful effort to beat covid-19 while avoiding the harsh closures and rules for social distancing imposed on residents of other developed countries.
Swedish residents could enjoy themselves in bars and restaurants, their schools remained open and somehow their economy flourished and they remained healthy. So say their fans, especially on the anti-lockdown right.
A new study by European researchers is burying all these claims in the ground. Published in NatureThe study paints a devastating picture of Swedish politics and its effects.
Forecasted levels of “natural herd immunity” are still nowhere in sight.
Brusselaers et al., Nature
“The Swedish response to this pandemic,” the researchers report, “was unique and characterized by a morally, ethically and scientifically questioned laissez-faire strategy.”
The main author of the report, the epidemiologist Nele Brusselaers, is affiliated with the prestigious Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; her employees are affiliated with research institutes in Sweden, Norway and Belgium.
The details of Swedish politics described by Brusselaers and her co-authors are frightening. The Swedish government, they report, deliberately tried to use children to spread covid-19 and denied care to seniors and those suffering from other conditions.
The government’s goal seemed to focus on producing herd immunity – a level of infection that would create a natural barrier to the spread of the pandemic without bothering middle- and upper-class citizens; the government never set that goal publicly, however internal government emails unearthed by the Swedish press revealed that herd immunity was the strategy behind closed doors.
Explicit or not, the effort failed. “Projected” natural flock immunity levels “are still nowhere in sight,” the researchers wrote, adding that flock immunity “does not work within reach without extensive vaccinations” and “may be unlikely” under any circumstances.
It is an accusation against the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, a white paper that has received much criticism in support of the pursuit of herd immunity and which is co-authored by Martin Kulldorf, a Swedish-born Harvard professor who has explicitly defended the politics of their homeland.
The country’s treatment of the elderly and patients with comorbidities such as obesity was particularly frightening.
“Many older people received morphine instead of oxygen despite available stores, which effectively ended their lives,” the researchers wrote. “Potential life-saving treatment was discontinued without medical examination and without informing the patient or his / her family or asking for permission.”
In densely populated Stockholm, triage rules stated that patients with comorbidity should not be admitted to intensive care units, on the grounds that they “were unlikely to recover”, the researchers wrote, referring to Swedish health strategy documents and statistics from research studies indicating that intensive care units were biased against older patients.
These guidelines were created by a small, isolated group of government officials who not only failed to consult with public health experts, but ridiculed expert opinions and circled around the chariots to defend Anders Tegnell, the government epidemiologist who ruled as the architect behind the country’s strategy. , against growing criticism.
The bottom line is that the Swedes suffered badly from Tegnell’s policy. According to the authoritative Johns Hopkins pandemic trackerwhile its overall death rate from February 2020 to this week, 1,790 per million inhabitants, is better than that in the United States (2,939), the United Kingdom (2,420) and France (2,107), but it is worse than in Germany ( 1,539), Canada (984) and Japan (220).
More tellingly, it is much worse than the frequency for the Nordic neighbors Denmark (961), Norway (428) and Finland (538), which all took a tougher anti-pandemic strategy.
Anti-lockdown advocates continue to praise Sweden’s approach even today, despite the harsh, cold statistics that document its failure.
The right-wing economic commentator Stephen Moore, a reliably wrong savvy on many topics, weakened by Sweden’s mortality compared to other countries that introduced stricter locks: “Sweden seems to have achieved herd immunity much faster and more thoroughly than other nations,” Moore wrote.
Unfortunately no.
According to Johns Hopkins, February 17, the day then Moore’s column appeared in the conservative Washington ExaminerSweden’s average death rate in seven days in covid was 5.25 per million inhabitants.
It was better than the rate of 6.84 in the United States, where shutdowns had subsided and always been spotty, and in Denmark (5.65), but worse than France (3.97), Germany (2.23), Great Britain (2, 23), Canada (2.03) and Norway (0.92).
Moore also explained, “What is clear today is that the Swedes saved their finances.”
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or the OECD, of which Sweden is a member, is not fully approved.
OECD found that in terms of pandemic-driven economic downturn, Sweden performed marginally better than Europe as a whole, but significantly worse than its Nordic neighbors Denmark, Norway and Finland, “despite the adoption of softer distance measures, especially during the first covid wave.” COVID-19, the OECD concludes, “hits the economy hard.”
The nature authors show that Swedish authorities denied or toned down scientific findings about covid that should have guided them to more motivated and appropriate policies.
These included scientific findings that infected but asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals could spread the virus, that it was airborne, that the virus was a greater health threat than the flu, and that children were not immune.
The Swedish politicians “denied or devalued the fact that children can be contagious, develop serious diseases or drive the spread of the infection in the population”, the Nature authors state. At the same time, they found, the authorities’ “internal emails indicate their purpose in using children to spread the infection in the community.”
So the government refused to give advice on wearing masks or social distancing or to sponsor more tests – at least for a start. A fact that tends to be obscured by anti-lockdown advocates is that Sweden eventually tightened its rules and advice on social distancing, but only after the failure of its original policy became clear.
Initially, at the beginning of March, when other European countries went into a strict lockdown, Sweden only banned public gatherings of 500. Within a few weeks, that ceiling was reduced to 50 participants. The state initially did not allow distance learning in schools, but later allowed it for older students and university students.
In June 2020, Tegnell himself confirmed on Swedish radio that the country’s death toll was too high. “There is clearly a potential for improvement in what we have done in Sweden,” he said, even though he backed down somewhat during a press conference after the radio interview.
And in December 2020, King Carl XVI Gustaf shocked the country by taking a public stand against the government’s stance: “I think we have failed,” he said. “We have a large number who have died and that is terrible.”
He was right. If Sweden had had Norway’s death toll, it would have suffered only 4,429 covid deaths during the pandemic, instead of more than 18,500.
What can be particularly damaged by the experience is Sweden’s image as a liberal society. The pandemic revealed many lines of fault in society – especially young versus old, natives versus immigrants.
The nature authors emphasize the irony in that result: “More emphasis was placed on protecting the ‘Swedish image’ than on saving and protecting lives or on an evidence-based approach.”
The lessons learned from the Swedish experience should be listened to by its fans here in the US and in other countries. Sweden sacrificed its elderly for the pandemic and used its school children as guinea pigs. Its government persecuted its people with lies about COVID-19 and even tried to tarnish its critics.
These are elements of the policies of the states that have been least successful in fighting the pandemic in the United States, as Florida – sacrifices carried by the most vulnerable, scientific authorities who are ignored or despised, lies are presented as truth. Do we really want the whole of America to face the same catastrophe?
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.