Sweden was thrust into the international spotlight when it took a notably different strategy to handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Spectators looked upon the Scandinavian nation with both dismay and curiosity as it withheld implementing a national lockdown like its European neighbours, and instead went for a more lax approach.
The Swedish government operates differently to most other countries regarding public health policy. Instead of the governing party making the main decisions, the responsibility is held by the Public Health Agency, a department dedicated to advising the government on health matters. This set Sweden apart from most of Europe – it was not the government making decisions, it was an unelected body. This meant the state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, was thrust to the centre stage, being the chief spokesperson and architect of the country’s Coronavirus strategy.
Throughout the history of Sweden, the precedent has been for the governing party to act on the advice of the government agencies without question.
An additional issue was that the Swedish Constitution expressly forbids the government from curtailing freedom of movement (except during wars), as well as preventing ministerial rule. Therefore, a lockdown was off the table.
Instead of this, the Swedish government issued guidelines and codes that it encouraged its citizens to adopt. It was known as a ‘common sense’ approach, relying on the Swedish public’s goodwill to obey these regulations.
The Swedish public rallied behind this strategy. Polling from late March showed 71%-76% of Swedes trusting the Public Health Agency. An early April poll corroborated with this, saying only 18% of the public didn’t trust them.
There were sceptics both within and without the country. The far-right Sweden Democrats led the criticism from inside the country – and may stand to gain politically from positioning themselves as such. Outside, many liberal and social democratic journalists criticised the response as flippant and irresponsible.
But what was the result of this different strategy? In short, a catastrophically high death toll when compared to its Scandinavian neighbours.
The information that can be drawn from comparisons between countries – with regards to death tolls – is usually limited. Nations have unique population densities, infrastructure and cultures, meaning that conclusions usually come with several caveats. Norway, Finland and Denmark, however, are remarkably similar to Sweden. Directly comparing each of these countries’ figures, Sweden’s death toll is magnitudes higher, and its death rate is over 10 times that of Norway.
Tegnell has since expressed regret in Sweden’s Coronavirus strategy.
“I think there’s certainly room for improvement in what we’ve done in Sweden, absolutely.” he said.
And even after keeping their economy open, Sweden has still experienced an economic retraction on a similar level to both Norway and Denmark, rather harshly proving that their calmer approach did very little to alleviate economic damage.
As the crisis raged on and stretched into June, public support for their response began waning. At the behest of opposition parties in Sweden, an investigation has been launched into the country’s shortcomings, hoping to shed light on how responsibility is shared between the government and the Public Health Agency. It’s possible that Coronavirus could change the country’s political landscape for years to come.
Of course, it is still quite premature to make any hard conclusions regarding their overall strategy. In a year or two – after this crisis – it will be easier to say with certainty whether their strategy was a success or a failure. For now, however, it looks like the initial sceptics are being proven right.