The Swedish model for the management of the pandemic was a “failure“On all fronts. Initially viewed with interest and admiration, Sweden’s “brave” approach proved to be a tragic mess. The definitive rejection of the anti-Covid policies applied by Sweden comes from a study that involved scientists of different backgrounds, coming from the Belgiumfrom the Norwaycome on United States and from Tiesto itself. The conclusions, published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications (Nature), shed light on all the mistakes that Swedish authorities and scientists have committed to support their undoubtedly “unique” approach to the pandemic. The active and unscrupulous search for herd immunity made use of “questionable” toolsstarting with the administration of “morphine instead of oxygeno ”to elderly and frail patients who later died, despite the available supplies.
The authors point out that Sweden’s decisions were made following the “extreme” advice of independent scientists and how much public opinion has been kept in the dark about important facts, which concern the spread of Covid-19. It is no coincidence, according to scholars, that Sweden has recorded the highest death rate from Covid-19 compared to all other surrounding Nordic nations.
“The Swedish response to this pandemic has been unique and characterized by a ‘laissez-faire‘ morally, ethically and scientifically questionable, a consequence of the structural problems of society ”, write the authors of the study. “There was more emphasis on protecting the ‘Swedish image’ than saving and protecting lives or an evidence-based approach,” they add.
It was actually all predictable. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, scholars explain, the Swedish Public Health Agency (PHA) had published two planning documents in the event of the arrival of a pandemic. Well, both emphasized the importance of antiviral drugs and vaccines to treat and prevent cases, but the importance of “limit the consequences for individuals and society “ and how “the negative effects on society must be as small as possible”. So when WHO declared a “global pandemic” in March 2020, Sweden was determined to keep its economy running and has focused on individual responsibility rather than collective responsibility.
According to the study, the prime minister and the minister of health and social affairs “mainly referred to the authority of the Public Health Agency”, where the most authoritative scientists had stopped working in recent years. The result of this choice is now there for all to see. Unlike the severe lockdowns implemented by most of Europe, the PHA simply recommended staying at home in case of illness, washing hands regularly, implementing social distancing and avoiding unnecessary travel. Nothing more. Meanwhile, restaurants, bars and shops remained open (pictured Stockholm in April 2020). Children under the age of 16 continued to attend school with no exceptions for those with family members at risk. And there is no obligation for masks. The study found that the PHA eventually recommended the use of masks in hospitals and nursing homes in June 2020, but only when treating confirmed or suspected Covid patients.
The authors said the PHA discouraged the use of masks, saying they were ineffective. Doing so would help spread the infection into the population, completely uninformed. The population has not been informed, for example, that asymptomatic people can be contagious and that masks protect the wearer and those around them.
According to the study authors, there was also one lack of transparency on the part of public health authorities. The public was unaware of the number of ICU beds by region, and schools often did not notify parents or teachers when students tested positive for the virus. During the spring of 2020, according to scholars, many patients would not have been hospitalized and would not have received a health examination as they were considered not at risk. Moreover, again according to the evaluations of the Swedish Public Health Agency, it would have been denied or downgraded the fact that children could be infectious, develop serious diseasesor guide the spread of the infection in the population, “while their internal emails they indicated the goal of using children to spread the infection in society ”.
At the same time doctors and scientists who criticized this strategy have been silenced. When researchers have voiced their criticisms on social media, in interviews or in scientific articles, they have often been reprimanded by their superiors. The researchers were accused of using their university affiliation without permission, for example, in stark contrast to Sweden’s right to free speech. Furthermore, PHA also “discredited any national / international scientific criticism and evidence,” say the authors, according to whom the Swedish agency “chose” only scientific articles that agreed with its point of view. Ultimately, this led to theto Sweden to experience more dramatic and tragic consequences of this pandemic than neighboring Nordic countries. At the end of December 2020, the Sweden recorded an average of 44 deaths from Covid-19 per one million people, according to Our World in Data. In comparison, the Denmark recorded 5 deaths per million, the Norway 0.5 deaths per million and the Finland 0.3 deaths per million. A month earlier, a report by the Swedish Health and Social Services Inspectorate found that half of the country’s deaths were among nursing home residents. About a year later, in January 2022, during the Omicron wave, Sweden fared better and recorded 5 deaths per 1 million. However, the other three countries recorded half of the deaths with Denmark recording the highest at 2.4 per 1 million, according to Our World in Data. “The infection and death cost of this pandemic in Sweden has been higher in some other more densely populated and more centrally located countries, but is still considerably higher than in the other Nordic countries,” the authors write. “This Swedish laissez-faire strategy has had a great human cost to Swedish society”, Conclude the scholars.
I study
30science for the Fact