Throughout much of the pandemic, Sweden has stood out for its ostensibly successful efforts to overcome COVID-19 while avoiding the strict lockdowns and social distancing rules imposed on residents of other developed countries. rice field.

Swedish residents were able to enjoy themselves in bars and restaurants, schools continued to open, and somehow the economy remained thriving and healthy. So say their fans, especially those on the anti-lockdown right.

A new study by European scientists has effectively put all those claims to rest. Published in Naturethis study paints a devastating picture of Swedish policy and its impact.

“Swedish response to the pandemic was unique, characterized by a morally, ethically and scientifically dubious laissez-faire approach,” the researchers report.

The report’s lead author, epidemiologist Nele Brüsselers, is at the prestigious Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Her collaborators are at research institutes in Sweden, Norway and Belgium.

The details of Swedish policy described by Brüsserer and his co-authors are frightening. They reported that the Swedish government intentionally used children to spread COVID-19, denying care to the elderly and those suffering from other illnesses.

The government’s goal appears to be herd immunity, a level of infection that provides a natural barrier to the spread of the pandemic without disturbing the middle and upper classes. The government never publicly announced its goals, but Internal government emails unearthed by Swedish news agency Herd immunity proved to be a behind-the-scenes strategy.

Efforts have failed, explicit or not. “Predicted levels of ‘natural herd immunity’ are nowhere to be seen yet,” the researchers wrote, adding that herd immunity “doesn’t seem achievable without widespread vaccination,” and that any He added that even under the circumstances, “it may be unlikely.”

It is an attack on the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, a widely criticized white paper that supports the pursuit of herd immunity and co-authored by Swedish-born Harvard professor Martin Krudolf. clearly defended policy of his home country.

The country’s treatment of the elderly and those with comorbidities such as obesity has been particularly bad.

“Many elderly people were given morphine instead of oxygen, effectively ending their lives despite the supply,” the researchers wrote. “Potentially life-saving treatments were withheld without consultation, without informing patients and their families, and without obtaining permission.”

In densely populated Stockholm, triage rules stipulate that patients with comorbidities should not be admitted to intensive care units because they have a “low chance of recovery,” researchers said in Swedish Health. Citing statistics from strategy documents and research studies, he said admissions to intensive care units in ICUs were not allowed. Hospitalizations were skewed toward older patients.

These policies not only failed to consult with public health experts, but also mocked their views and defended the government’s epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who reigned as the architect of this country’s approach. It was conceived by a small, closed group of government officials who revolved around a wagon. , against mounting criticism.

In short, the Swedes suffered badly from Tegnell’s policies.according to Johns Hopkins Authoritative Pandemic Tracker, the total death rate from February 2020 to this week is 1,790 per million population, better than the US (2,939), UK (2,420) and France (2,107), but Germany (1,539) and Canada worse than (984), Japan (220).

More specifically, this rate is far worse than in Nordic neighbors Denmark (961), Norway (428) and Finland (538), which have taken tougher pandemic measures.

Anti-lockdown advocates continue to praise Sweden’s approach today, despite grim statistics supporting its failures.

Right-wing economic commentator Stephen Moore is certainly wrong on many topics, snubbing Sweden’s mortality rate compared to other countries that have imposed stricter lockdowns, saying, “Sweden is the other country.” “It appears to be achieving herd immunity much more quickly and thoroughly than other countries.” Moore wrote.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t.

According to Johns Hopkins University, on that date, February 17, Moore’s column appeared in the conservative Washington ExaminerThe average seven-day death rate from the novel coronavirus in Sweden was 5.25 per million inhabitants.

This was better than the US rate of 6.84 and Denmark (5.65), where lockdowns were fading and was always spotty, but worse than France (3.97), Germany (2.23), UK (2.23) and Canada. (2.03) and Norway (0.92).

Moore also declared, “What is clear today is that the Swedes saved the economy.”

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which also includes Sweden, is less optimistic.

discovered by the OECD In terms of economic contraction due to the pandemic, Sweden did slightly better than Europe as a whole “despite the adoption of more lenient distancing measures, especially during the first wave of COVID-19”, but its Nordic neighbors He said it was significantly worse than Denmark, Norway and Finland. The OECD concludes that COVID-19 has “had a major blow to the economy”.

The Nature authors show that Swedish authorities denied or downplayed scientific findings about the novel coronavirus that should have guided more rational and appropriate policies.

These include that infected but asymptomatic or presymptomatic people can spread the virus, that it is airborne, that the virus poses a greater health threat than the flu, and that children have no immunity. It included scientific knowledge such as

Swedish policymakers “denied or downplayed the fact that children could contract infectious diseases, develop serious illnesses or facilitate the spread of infections within the population.” says the author of Nature. At the same time, it was also found that the authorities’ “internal emails indicated their purpose of using children to spread the infection in society.”

So, at least initially, the government has refused to recommend wearing masks or social distancing, or sponsor further testing. One fact that anti-lockdown advocates tend to hide is that Sweden eventually tightened up its social distancing regulations and recommendations, but only after the initial policy failures became apparent. .

Initially, in early March, when other European countries went into strict lockdowns, Sweden banned public gatherings of only 500 people, but within weeks it lowered the limit to 50 people. The state initially did not allow distance learning in schools, but later allowed older students and college students.

Tegnell himself, June 2020 Recognized by Swedish radio The death rate in this country is too high. “There is clearly potential for improvement in what we have done in Sweden,” he said, before slightly backtracking at a press conference following the airing of the radio interview.

And in December 2020, King Carl XVI Gustaf shocked the country by taking a public stance on the government’s approach, saying, “I think we have failed.” “A lot of people have died, which is a big deal.”

he was right If Sweden had the same death rate as Norway, only 4,429 people would have died from COVID-19 during the pandemic, not more than 18,500.

The experience may have particularly hurt Sweden’s image as a liberal society. The pandemic has exposed many faults within societies, especially between young and old, indigenous and immigrant.

The authors of Nature emphasized the irony of the result, stating that “the emphasis was on protecting ‘the image of Sweden’ rather than saving or protecting lives or evidence-based approaches.” there is

Lessons learned from the Swedish experience should be kept in mind by fans here in the US and elsewhere. Sweden sacrificed the elderly in the pandemic and used schoolchildren as guinea pigs. The government lied to the public about COVID-19 and even tried to smear its critics.

These are hallmarks of policies in the least successful states in the United States, such as Florida, to combat the pandemic. The most vulnerable suffer, the scientific authorities ignore or downplay, and lies are promoted as truth. Do we really want all of America to face the same disaster?