Bild: Linus Mimietz/unsplash
Speculations about the Swedish model are used to support the most crass notions. An overview of the situation
“The failure of the ‘Swedish model’ and its dramatic consequences” was the title above one recently Spiegelarticle behind the paywall, and you asked yourself: is this the definitive proof? Spoilers: No, it’s not him.
Anyone looking for an appropriate evaluation of Sweden’s handling of the pandemic is with the Report of the Corona Commission more comprehensive and more up-to-date.
Of the Spiegel-Article refers to a study published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications has appeared: Evaluation of science advice during the Covid-19 pandemic in Sweden. In particular, the work of the Public Health Agency (Folkhälsomyndigheten) is evaluated, whose epidemiologist Anders Tegnell has achieved some fame, even though the head of the agency at the time was Johan Carlson.
The study concludes that the Swedish path was characterized “by a morally, ethically and scientifically questionable laissez-faire approach”. The aim was more to maintain a certain image of Sweden than to save lives.
This study was shared diligently on social media, alternatively the articles about it. The fact that it was published on the portal contributed to the credibility of the study nature.com was published, about which various publications are published. Fugitive readers continued this with the journal Nature same, which is the flagship of this portal. But the study was not published there, but in the much less well-known Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.
And it’s not just a scientific study with numbers and model calculations.
The published text largely conveys undisputed facts that are known to anyone who has followed Swedish corona policy in the past two years, especially those from the first partial report of the Corona Commission in autumn 2020 and the Investigation of IVO, the Swedish inspectorate of social services. The latter investigates specific allegations against individual institutions.
The Corona Commission, an independent body set up by the government, had already complained at the time that the hesitant action of politicians and authorities had contributed to the large spread of the virus, which they repeated in the overall assessment. IVO’s criticism relates to the fact that there have been cases in which elderly people have been treated palliatively without an individual doctor’s assessment.
Between these facts, however, formulations that do not convey facts, but evaluations, are repeatedly noticed. The Swedish science journalist Amina Manzoor therefore says that the text is “written more like an opinion article than like a study”. The authors also limit their observations to only the year 2020. That is convenient, according to Manzoor – the year after does not fit into their narrative just as well.
The self-declared goal of this study is a judgment on the extent to which the responsible actors have followed scientific standards in their recommendations and measures – and this is devastating.
In addition to undisputed facts and somewhat dubious assessments, there is also a claim that is simply wrong:
The precautionary principle followed by most countries, was not followed, since officials even said symptomatic individuals could go to work and pick up their children at school.
The precautionary principle in place in most countries was not followed, with authorities even stating that people with Covid symptoms could go to work and pick up their children from school.
At no time, until today, has Sweden given the green light for people with Covid symptoms to go to work. On the contrary: “Stanna hemma om du är sjuk” – “Stay at home if you’re sick” – was and is the most important and most propagated “measure” of the Swedish pandemic control.
So that people really do stay at home if they suspect it, at the time when there was not yet a test for everyone, replaced the state with a lump sum, the financial deduction that an employee has as a result of reporting sick (“karensavdrag”). This financial grant expired at the end of March 2022, but the call to stay at home with Covid symptoms still applies til today.
In retrospect, nobody denies that the Swedish public health authority underestimated the effects of the corona virus. However, the main author Nele Brusselaers had to experience for herself that knowledge about the virus was rudimentary at the time and that it was difficult to make predictions.
In the spring of 2020, she was involved in a model calculation that predicted 96,000 deaths for Sweden by the end of June 2020 forecast, if you don’t quickly resort to the most massive measures. As is well known, that’s not how it happened – there were less than 6,000, and even after two years of the pandemic there are “only” 18,600.
One focus of the authors is on the old people’s homes, where the virus initially spread quickly and where not everyone was adequately cared for in this initial phase of the pandemic. That is undisputed. In the extensive appendix, the authors address this topic again, including the accusation that “some lives could have been saved or prolonged if they had been given oxygen instead of morphine.” However, there are no concrete figures on this.
The authors also repeatedly criticize the fact that there were no school closures – although the plans for pandemic preparation provided for them. In fact, the decision against school closures was made on exactly the scientific basis that the authors are demanding. Remember: It’s about the first phase, the first virus. In fact, children were much less affected then.
In their assessment, the authorities came to the conclusion that not going to school was far more harmful for the children. The older children, who were more at risk, received distance learning. In the meantime, the consequences of school failure are becoming more and more visible in other countries and there is a consensus that this remedy should be avoided as far as possible – although the current virus variants are also much more contagious for children.
Read what you want to read
The reception of “Evaluation of science advice during the Covid-19 pandemic in Sweden” would be a research project in itself.
The Australian professor Raina MacIntyre is an extreme example: She cited Sweden as chilling exampleas a country where old people were given morphine instead of oxygen and were involuntarily euthanized en masse.
Mass murder and euthanasia of Swedish nursing home residents? Australian doctor Simon Rowe dug into the sources after MacIntyre’s dramatic allegation and was unconvinced – two doctors and two nurses as the main source, mainly articles from the lay press and the number of people affected from “some to more than 10”. Accusations such as those made by MacIntyre are not made by the authors themselves and cannot be backed up by the sources.
In her contribution to the debate, MacIntyre tried to convince her compatriots to take stronger measures against Covid. The real conditions in Sweden earlier or today are of no interest.
This may be a particularly blatant example, but it is repeatedly shown in the international reporting on Swedish corona policy: the focus is on what is needed at the moment, usually a deterrent example. But even those who believe that Sweden “did everything right” ignore factors.
Corona in Sweden today
Where is Sweden today? The topic of Corona has practically completely disappeared from the public debate.
Now it’s about the war in Ukraine and whether or not to join NATO. All measures have been lifted since February 9th. The disease is no longer considered to be dangerous to society and the Pandemic Act has also expired.
In the event of symptoms, only the following group of people have to contact each other get tested: Healthcare and elderly care workers, residents and those receiving ambulatory care, those in hospital and those for whom it is recommended by a doctor.
Those numbers are going down slow. The virus is also monitored by random sampling in the population. There are still between 20 and 30 people in intensive care. It is impossible to know how many have had the virus once, twice or even three times due to the high number of unreported cases.
In a European and international comparison, the Swedish corona numbers are no longer conspicuous, not even in the overall balance of deaths. However, Norway and Finland are still significantly lower.
The study attempts to hold the competent authorities and politicians morally responsible for the dead – by constructing whether the advice was correct. However, it is a long way from a general recommendation to premature death in a nursing home.
The Corona Commission has worked through this more comprehensively, taking into account the somewhat complicated structures of the Swedish health system and care. The complete period until the measures are lifted is also considered, apart from the vaccination campaign, which was not part of the order.
In its overall assessment, the Commission wanted faster and more effective measures in the first phase of the pandemic, in order to be on the safe side in the face of a new, unknown danger.
However, she did not consider repeated lockdowns to be expedient, the voluntary nature of the measures was correct, as was the fact that there were no school closures.
However, the government, in particular former Prime Minister Stefan Löfvén, and the former head of the authorities, Johan Carlson, are also named as those primarily responsible in the final report. Conveniently, both are no longer in office.
(Andrea Seliger)
–
