[thawaway1837]

Sweden’s strategy failed on its own terms. There is absolutely no arguing that. Their first goal was to protect the vulnerable, and they failed miserably at that. Fundamentally because Tegnell resisted the fact that asymptomatic carriers existed.

One could argue, like some Iraq war proponents do, that the idea was ok for Sweden, but the failure was in execution. But one can not argue that it wasn’t a significant failure.

[jmauritz]

We're barely 3 months into this and your calling it a failure? could it be done better: yes, it is failure? no. "no arguing", "can not argue" Yes, you very much can, and we'll see in a few years what the "correct" choice was.

[addicted]

It failed in terms of their own goals.

The actual spread of the virus is a fraction of what Tegnell predicted. They were predicting close to 60% by the end of May. It was in the low teens with about a week to go in May in Stockholm.

Their primary goal was to protect the vulnerable ie the elderly. But Tegnell did not believe in the existence of asymptomatic carriers (well after other countries had locked down because of them) so care workers who were infected but not showing symptoms were in constant contact with the elderly since his guidance required them to avoid going in to work only if they showed symptoms.

Both of these were the primary stated goals. Neither were achieved.

[dpau]

the comment was referring to failure in execution, not necessarily failure in choosing the correct approach. it's hard to argue that sweden shouldn't have been more careful with its elderly and vulnerable, even if going for herd immunity.

[svrtknst]

It's fairly impossible to say "Sweden should hav ebeen more careful with its elderly" - The measures put in place by Sweden were designed with that in mind.

That's why elderly care facilities were the first, if not only ones, to face quarantine.

However, when you have years of poor management of elderly care, and elderly care companies that refuse to heed the recommendations, there's not much "Sweden" can do in the moment wihtout severe effort.

[jacobush]

And the politicians should have put in that severe, very expensive effort. But that would have required them to be fast, which is not a very Swedish thing. Everything is extremely decentralised and in many cases privatized.

Either the state (highest level) should have forced an intervention, or all actors should have acted responsibly. But there is too much inertia. The elderly care is so poorly managed, it was not only a disaster waiting to happen, it actually was a slow burning dumpster fire even before Covid19.

So many wasted opportunities.

[svrtknst]

How would they do that? I think it's safe to assume right away that the companies aren't going to act responsibly, because, well, they haven't for years. So that leaves the state, and what should they do?

Not like they can push a button and invent more caretakers, fix internal routines, etc, across an entire country.

I'd love it if they could, but in general, there is going to be inertia when trying to affect change in a system that has been degrading for years, with actors actively working against those changes (in this case, companies putting profit over welfare).

It's so very, very easy to say "the state should have done something, fast", but it gets very difficult when you're trying to specify which parts of the state should have done what, to which actors and on which level.

[addicted]

Right, and it had nothing to do with Tegnell’s resistance to the idea of asymptomatic carriers and hence his guidance that care workers were free to go into work as long as they didn’t show symptoms.

Edit: Also, your comment basically justifies the lockdowns in every other country. Tegnell’s whole argument was that the enlightened Swedes didn’t need a mandatory lockdown because they would simply do the right thing without the government telling them. And there is some truth to that in a society that is wealthy, well educated, and highly trusting of its government. Despite that, it’s citizenry failed to achieve what Tegnell said they would.

How in the world would you expect other countries’ citizens to voluntarily do what the government was recommending when Sweden couldn’t? His criticism of lockdowns in other countries was completely unwarranted based on his own reasoning for why Sweden didn’t need a lockdown (which also, as you point out, turned out to be wrong).

[TulliusCicero]

I mean, way more people died per capita than their geographic/cultural neighbors. That seems like a pretty clear failure.

[anoncake]

So far. The more "successful" countries will catch up when their populations get tired of being locked down and the second wave comes.

[magicalhippo]

Norway is right next door, and did a lockdown, but has opened up and will open up more shortly.

It will be very interesting to see how things go in Norway compared to Sweden in the next weeks and months.

[TulliusCicero]

Germany has been slowly opening up for a month or so and this hasn't happened: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

[anoncake]

Yet.

[oska]

Your argument has been repeated a number of times through this thread and it's bogus. Sweden's policy is already a failure because its economy has been affected to much the same level as other similar countries while experiencing a much higher death rate. And other countries are now opening up again to each other, while Sweden has become a pariah.