Did Sweden’s coronavirus strategy succeed or fail?

Did Sweden’s coronavirus strategy succeed or fail?

It’s been almost a year since the Covid 19 virus started to spread out; within this course, it slumped into our ordinary life and the economy of humankind. Political leaders, scientists, and governments are still trying to figure out the solution. The WHO is directing their speculations; their first theory stated coronavirus doesn’t spread between people, later noted it is not an airborne transmission. The magic-vaccine offered by politicians is still an illusion; many countries like the United Kingdom and France are repeatedly imposing lockdowns amidst protests and disapprovals. Assumptions and uncertainties are continuously emerging, this makes everyday life more stressful after high mental and economical difficulty. Countries have proposed strict lockdowns across Europe foreseeing a second wave of the virus. After a while, China reporting cases again,  India announced their unlocking process, the United States is still on the top list of losses, while several African and Asian countries still do not take coronavirus as a serious pandemic. However, Sweden is always in the headline for its model fighting COVID-19.

In Europe, the first official coronavirus case was reported on January 21st in France. After Italy reported a rapid social spread of the virus all European countries entered strict lockdown. During this time Sweden was following the directions of their chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, where they did not declare a lockdown by following his theory of herd immunity; many scientists and health organizations slammed Sweden for this approach, succeeding months countries who imposed strict lockdown showed recovery from the spreading of virus and death rate. Countries that didn’t impose lockdowns like Sweden exposed a huge death rate by the end of June. Sweden recorded their highest death toll by June, but they resumed their strategy by correctly minding old age homes, encouraging 2-meter social distancing, boosting working from home, and demanding people to avoid unnecessary travels. When in Spain, France, and Britain the cases declined, the Swedish infection rate started rising. Media and various organizations remarked the Swedish model was a flop, but in October things changed. Western Europe recorded a very high second wave, Spain recorded its highest numbers suppressing their initial 100 million cases in March;  while during the same time Sweden stabilized their rate below 1.5% and reduced deaths. Although one numeral death per capita should be noted in Sweden, Tegnell admitted this and embraced it in the following weeks.

Governments around the globe began to change their outlook on the virus during this period. Countries like India started their unlocking phase even though the cases are rising and their economy is in jeopardy. In this situation, while evaluating the data of 10 months, researchers and governments already started to study which model is more sustainable; whether it’s the USA, Europe, Sweden, East Asia, India? but there is no clear-cut explanation. Every country’s sphere and demography are different; the first preference for Europeans which they don’t want to follow is extending forced masks and strict quarantine rules. Sweden is not dense as Bangladesh when in China, the government can impose anything with their iron fist. In India, deprivation and economic stability are the most significant concern. African and Arab countries seem to don’t even have coronavirus seriously.

On account of the financial impact and normal living between the lockdowns, we have to admit the Swedish model has been the most successful to date. Europe and China couldn’t obstruct the virus from spreading by their strict lockdowns. Although lockdowns helped these countries to lessen death rates but still living life with infection necessitates more sustainability. In many European countries, the second lockdown is facing protests, and people in some places have begun unwilling to accept measures from the government. Waiting for the vaccine to still seems a long wait as many vaccine experiments have been withdrawn due to unsuccessful test results.  Russia’s first registered vaccine, Sputnik 5 is still hasn’t received international recognition. The world is expecting a vaccine in 2021 then, or for more years, people recognize that they have to live with the virus and this is making the Swedish model comparatively most adaptable.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.