The European governments that were under a lockdown are now trying to copy the free ones. However, experts are warning other governments to take lessons from the Sweden Covid-19 approach. The Swedish model relies less on coercion and more on voluntary compliance, making it unsuitable for everyone. The biggest question that arises in this situation is whether the model worked out well for Sweden itself.
While the infection rate is increasing in several parts of Europe, France is leading the charts. There are reports of approximately 12,000 cases per day in the country. However, the French government is unwilling to implement another lockdown. Instead, they want to follow the strategy of Jean Castex, French Prime Minister. According to him, people should adhere to basic safety protocols and make a living with the virus easier.
On the other hand, Spain is also unwilling to go into another lockdown despite recording 700,000 cases. According to the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, the country has all the correct tools to stay safe. However, he states that individual commitment is irreplaceable. Therefore, it is his earnest request that citizens abide by all the fundamental safety and health laws.
The Foreign Minister of the UK, Dominic Raab, denies agreeing with Carl Henegan. The latter is the Oxford Center for Evidence-based medicine director, which says that there is a significant shift in policies. According to Henegan, this shift is the reason for the increasing transmission in Sweden. There was more reliability on personal commitment, and therefore a rise in the number of infections.
WHO finds the approach of Sweden interesting
There is nothing new anymore about the process of containing the coronavirus. The Central and local governments are continually making everything clear. What is important now is the civic responsibility of the individual. The “light-touch” approach is what several people are learning from the Sweden Covid-19 approach. According to a senior member of the WHO (World Health Organization), the global community can take lessons from Scandinavian countries.
The European regional emergency director of WHO, Dorit Nitzan, says more about the Swiss approach. According to him, the country’s focus on slow sustainability, voluntary compliance, and citizen engagement are exciting. The world is in a situation where everyone must now learn to start living with the coronavirus. However, Nitzen also mentions that it cannot be one approach that all countries mandatorily follow. Therefore, every system must be in consideration of the context and situation.
In this case, the world should understand that the Sweden Covid-19 approach is worth considering because even WHO finds it attractive. Now that even the most extensive health organization is willing to take lessons from Sweden, it is undoubtedly sustainable and effective. The country has been able to consider all citizens’ response and turn it into something beneficial.
Why should people learn from the Sweden Covid-19 approach?
Unlike several other nations, Sweden kept universities and colleges closed for students above the age of 16years. However, schools for the younger ones were running throughout. There was also a ban on public gatherings with over 50 guests. For the ones where there are over 70 people, everyone should go into self-isolation to avoid any risk. Other than this, the government officials followed the requesting over ordering system. They ask all citizens to maintain social distancing and work from home if they can. All 10 million people can go to shops, gyms, restaurants, and bars that are kept open. Moreover, the government did not recommend the mandatory wearing of masks.
According to Anders Tegnell, head epidemiologist, the goal here was not to achieve an extra-rapid herd community. Instead, the Swedish government wanted to reduce the contamination rate to the extent that health officials can control. He says that the problem was not a sprint, but a marathon. According to authorities, experts must view public health from a broader perspective. The primary reason is that mandatory lockdown may give rise to several secondary issues. For example, mental health issues and increasing unemployment are some of the significant problems.
There are still several questions regarding the Swiss approach to handling the infection. Many groups inside and outside Sweden are opposing the rules calling them illogical and ignorant. While the survey says that most of the Swiss population supports the approach, critics are continually fighting the same. According to them, the Swedish Public Health Department and Tegnell are acting stubborn. They are ignorant about WHO recommendations as well as scientific evidence.
Critics are raising questions about Sweden’s COVID control approach
Earlier in May, Europe recorded the highest per capita rate of COVID-19 deaths. Its survey on every million natives is 10 times more than that of Finland and Norway. However, it is lower than in Italy and Spain. Around 50% of the total of 5,878 deaths in Sweden occurred in hospitals and care homes. Therefore, the situation gave rise to many angry accusations stating that the country was incapable of protecting the people in the most sensitive case.
Moreover, deaths in care homes gave rise to why the Swedish government was ignoring the health of the senior citizens. Many critics suggest that this was a trick to save beds in intensive care units. Moreover, the government has also taken the blame on itself for failing in the care sector.
Experts suggest that it is still too early to judge which country’s approach is the best. Nonetheless, the Swedish process can even become a lesson for the rest of the world regarding sustainable protection. While on the one hand, many people feel that the Swedish government was irresponsible, it was indeed smarter than many others. When other countries tried to implement mandatory protocols and lockdowns, Sweden dealt with the issue in a friendlier way. They made the citizens become a part of the fight by requesting them to follow basic rules only. There was no mandatory order, coercion, regulations, and more in this case.