Covid-19, Round 2: Sweden Misunderstood

In addition to a law -a legal constraint applicable to the public space, contrary to the recommendation- that limits public gatherings to eight (as opposed to 50 in the first wave), the authorities plan to limit the number of people in an enclosed space and prohibit the distribution of alcoholic beverages after 10 pm.

What are the strengths of the national strategy to combat the spread of the virus?

Sweden’s current strategy focuses mainly on obtaining the vaccine ahead of its expected introduction in January. The country has signed four contracts with four different laboratories, potentially leaving the country with a surplus of available doses (three to four times more than necessary). The government wished to focus on a surplus of vaccines in order to guarantee a sufficient supply, taking into account the potential risk of one or more of the vaccine developers not being successful. Any actual surplus will then be sold.

Regarding this issue, a significant strength for Sweden is the historical propensity of the population to be vaccinated. Despite the fact that vaccination is not compulsory but optional, the country has the highest vaccination rate in Europe (over 95%). One of the reasons for this is that the public health system is based on a collaborative arrangement between the government, governmental agencies and the public. Swedes are very involved in their health system and have a high level of trust in their institutions. While the country seems to be largely free from anti-vaccine campaigns, suspicions about the new vaccine do exist and are beginning to be seen at relatively high levels, with 25% of the population being skeptical.

Moreover, the emphasis on decentralized power works as both an asset and an obstacle for Sweden. Due to this decentralization, the government is more likely to make recommendations than impose rules, which are developed in conjunction with the population and independent regions. There are, however, disadvantages to this; for example, the testing strategy at the beginning of the pandemic was difficult to implement as it required coordination between regions, who organized the tests themselves without necessarily following government instructions. The collaborative approach of decentralized power helps in reaching agreements, but the presence of several levels of decision-making can slow down the effectiveness of measures, which has been particularly important in this situation.

There seems to be a consensus that the Swedes are committed to science. Why are views on Sweden’s approach to the crisis so polarized outside of the country?

The polarization of the debate on government measures in Sweden is linked to how Sweden features in international discussions generally. It is curious that a small country on the European periphery, close to the North Pole, attracts so much international interest. Perceived as the last liberal country in Europe by some (Russia in particular) and quasi-socialist by others (Trump’s United States), these perceptions, which are still relevant today, have an impact on how Swedes perceive themselves. Russia has described Sweden as a Western counterexample to itself, a morally decadent or ideologically "bankrupt" country and a dangerous threat to Russia’s traditional values. When the pandemic began, China referred to Sweden as the "black hole" of the virus, which risked wiping out the whole world through its negligence - this is an extension of the diplomatic conflict that already existed between the two countries, particularly over the imprisonment of a Swedish writer in China.

The lack of curfew measures was seen almost as a provocation to the wider world. Even though many countries mistakenly think that Sweden’s strategy is based on an economic strategy that prioritizes the health of its economy over the health of its people, it is actually the case that Sweden’s strategy has developed in accordance with its legal framework. Indeed, according to a recent OECD study, Sweden is one of the few countries that, by the end of 2021, will have a lower GDP than at the end of 2019. It is a real misunderstanding in the international community that Sweden is reluctant to establish binding measures against the virus just to avoid closing its economy. The debate in the United States mixes science and politics, leading to the battles for or against mask-wearing, being for or against science and being for or against Trump. And although the arguments in Sweden were hitherto based on medical and scientific discussion from the front line and centered around evidence-based medicine (excluding experimental treatments such as hydroxychloroquine), it is now becoming more politicized.

Copyright: Henrik MONTGOMERY / TT News Agency / AFP