The Swedish model for handling COVID is a disaster
Laying aside its espousal of the false dichotomy between a strict lockdown until a vaccine is developed and simply letting the virus run rampant- all kinds of approaches are possible in which restrictions can be periodically relaxed, as infection rates wane and doing so actually becomes safe -the article makes several predictions which the actual facts don't seem to bear out concerning the effects of Sweden's policy and takes some rather dubious claims by Swedish government officials at face value. But a great many people are making the same argument. Although the Trump administration has yet to come straight out and say so, the President's attitude and statements seem to be predicated on the same philosophy.
The Swedish approach has received a great deal of favorable "spin," and that being the case, we might do well to look past the rhetoric at the facts.
As of today- May 12, 2020- here are the comparative numbers of COVID-19 cases in the Nordic nations.
When the COVID pandemic struck, Sweden made the decision not to follow the model of suppression advocated by the experts and merely to mitigate the spread of the virus. Advocates of the approach the Trump administration apparently wants the United States to take have held it up as an example of what a somewhat Darwinian pursuit of "herd immunity" at the cost of the lives of vulnerable citizens could achieve. Restrictions were almost entirely voluntary and quite minimal. Schools were not closed. Gatherings of fewer than 50 people were not forbidden and apparently not particularly discouraged. The result speaks for itself.
Apparently, a lack of precautions leads to a lot of cases. That's hardly rocket science. But then, the real question is deaths, isn't it? What was the effect of Sweden's policy of mitigation rather than suppression on the number of people dying of COVID?
What you would expect. Sweden has experienced nearly ten times the number of deaths from COVID per 100,000 as Norway or Finland.
Sweden has sustained 17.3 COVID deaths per 100,000 people. Norway has seen 3.37 COVID deaths per 100,000 people. Finland has experienced 2.56 deaths per 100,000 people.
Norway and Finland acted quickly and implemented a strict and uniform policy of mandatory precautions. In the United States, which failed to heed warnings of the coming pandemic and to take appropriate precautions and make appropriate preparations, and where the precautions being taken were left to the individual states and as a result were been patchwork and somewhat chaotic, has experienced 13.1 deaths per 100,000 people. Due to a lack of leadership from an administration that has consistently minimized and even dismissed the threat, and also due to bureaucratic ineptitude, we're almost in as bad a shape as Sweden despite the precautions we've taken.
'Herd immunity-" the point at which a virus burns out from a lack of new targets to infect- is usually thought to be reached when 60% of a population is immune. It remains unclear how much immunity to COVID-19 is achieved by recovering from a case of it, but as of last week, In an interview given on April 20, Dr. Anders Tegnell, chief epidemiologist at Sweden’s Public Health Agency, said that 20-25% of Swedes who had been tested had antibodies to the virus that causes it.*
Sweden, like many other nations, is far ahead of the United States in the percentage of the population that has been tested despite our considerable progress in the number of tests that have been administered.
Dr. Tegnell claimed in the same interview that in parts of Sweden the infection rate has "plateaued," that the effects of "herd immunity" were already being seen and that more of them would be seen "in the coming weeks." But the actual statistics do not support Dr. Tegnell's optimism. The number of new cases has begun to rise again after a brief decline, and the daily number of deaths, while lower for the last couple of days reported, remains roughly comparable to the number a month ago,
In Norway, by contrast, the number of new cases is in steep decline and the number of daily deaths has fallen steadily.
2,300 Swedish academics have signed a letter urging the government to reconsider its policy. One thing, however, cannot be denied: Sweden's economy has been hurt less than that of its neighbors, and will doubtless recover more quickly. One wonders, however, how much longer that will remain the case. Advocates of a more Darwinian approach in the United States question how long it will be before the economic suffering of most Americans overcomes their concern about the virus. While there are signs that this may already be happening, it remains to be seen whether the trend will survive if the present increase in both new cases and deaths outside of New York and New Jersey continues. On the other hand, one is forced to wonder how many more Swedes will sicken and die while the government does little to control the pandemic, and how long the Swedish people will continue to stand for it.
In any case, even if one makes the dubious assumption that any nation's economy can indefinitely survive sickness and death at the rate to which Sweden is being subjected to them, the fundamental and morally defining philosophical question remains: how many unnecessary deaths is economic prosperity worth? And no matter how many times President Trump's odd statement that the cure ought not to be a greater tragedy than the disease may be repeated, it's impossible to avoid the question that lies behind it: how much economic privation it might take to be a greater evil than the deaths of tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings?
If that's an uncomfortable way to phrase the issue, that's tough. When all is said and done, that is what the debate boils down to. Are we willing to be a society that purchases relative prosperity at the cost of human lives? Our answer to that question may well define us in the eyes of history.
Or, to put it in terms that the maskless multitudes and those increasingly ignoring government-mandated anti-viral precautions might do well to consider, at what point do my neighbor's health and well-being cease to be more important to my own comfort and convenience?
ADDENDUM: Today's Washington Post had an interesting article on the actual reasoning behind the Swedish approach and the implications of the results. It's centered on an interview with Sweden's ambassador to the United States, who denies that the "Swedish model" is really a "model" at all and suggests that rather it was simply an attempt to call upon the specific tendencies of Swedish culture to honor trust and community, and which has not in all respects succeeded. She specifically denies that it was founded on an attempt to achieve "herd immunity" or any such cold-bloodedly Darwinian thing. and suggests that the approach may yet be changed.
The article is worth reading. As the headline says, it suggests that the so-called "Swedish model" is not at all what it seems, and certainly not a template for other nations to follow.
*ADDENDUM 2: A study by the Swedish public health service released on May 20 finds that as of the end of April new cases are again declining, as they are throughout most of the world. But despite all the death and suffering, it also shows that only 7.3% of the residents of Stockholm had antibodies to the SARS-CoV2 virus. Dr. Tegnell claims that this is only slightly lower than projected and that he still believes that the true figure is closer to 20% at this point because it takes a few weeks for antibodies to appear.
Perhaps. But 20% is far from 60%, and- predictably- the percentage of the population with antibodies outside of Stockholm seems much lower. All-in-all, the conclusions of the study do not help the idea that the pursuit of "herd immunity" is a viable strategy for dealing with COVID-19.
Comments