|
|
|
|
|
|
by jpangs88
2169 days ago
|
|
|
I feel that so many of these articles on Sweden fail to mention the reason for Sweden's strategy and often say it due to another reason. The reason that the Swedish government has given for the strategy is that they think that people can follow the restrictions long term. It's not to save the economy or to create heard immunity (which I have heard from many people.) I think it's too early to judge Sweden's strategy as presumably the intent is that things will be better down the line. On a more personal note, I live in Sweden and I am not a Swedish citizen and I can say that things aren't "Business as usual here" and plenty is being done to stop the spread of the COVID 19. I can't say I 100% agree with the policy but I also don't think it's the huge mistake people make it out to be. I have linked below an explanation for the strategy by one of Sweden's top epidemiologist and the one that's often credited as the architect of Sweden's strategy. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-28/sweden-s-... https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-risks/disaster... |
|
|
Both the Swedish 'no-lockdown' and the Dutch 'intelligent' lockdown are government policies that actually work locally because the government trusts that the population will follow the guidelines given (which they do for the majority).
Equally when I discussed with Dutch and Swedish people (anecdata) they all believed their national strategy was correct because they trusted their governaments competence and the science advisors that were being consulted.
I think many of these strategies cannot be translated to other countries were there isn't a shared trust level, i.e. population trusting the government's competence, and equally the government trusting civil society (biggest example being the US).