Food & Drink1 min ago
Was Sweden Right After All?
No compulsory lockdown there. Roundly criticised by its neighbours.
However the countries which protected its citizens from the virus previously are now seeing growing numbers of cases while Sweden’s is now by comparison very low.
https:/
However the countries which protected its citizens from the virus previously are now seeing growing numbers of cases while Sweden’s is now by comparison very low.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have friends in Denmark Jim and they told me exactly what you have said about Sweden regarding following the rules. There were very tight rules and not questioned. As one of my friends said early in the pandemic, 'the Danish are used to being very good and following rules - what on earth is happening in the UK ,'. The trouble as I see it is that our politicians tried too hard please us and kept changing the rules.
Perhaps not giving 'advice' but laying down and enforcing 'rules' would be a better approach.
Sadly though, here today, gone tomorrow politicians want to be everybody's friend and can't bring themselves to be stern, authoritarian or even vaguely competent when it comes down to it.
Now, back to moonshot and other tripe.
Sadly though, here today, gone tomorrow politicians want to be everybody's friend and can't bring themselves to be stern, authoritarian or even vaguely competent when it comes down to it.
Now, back to moonshot and other tripe.
That's true, and is more problematic in a country like the UK which is (a) more densely populated, and (b) maybe more politically-charged. I'd say overall, early on, there was a lot of goodwill and sympathy for the politicians in charge no matter which party you supported, but that is clearly fading -- either because of mixed messages or because of whatever other reason.
The advantage the Swedish had is that the rules were set by an independent body, which provides some level of trust. It would in the UK have been true of any party in power, but if you are motivated even slightly by "what will the voters think?" when making health policy decisions, it has to be the wrong mindset.
A good way of viewing this would be to compare Public Health England with the Swedish equivalent. Over there, the Health Agency is solely and entirely responsible, even to the point where politicians passed legislation that the body required; but that means that they are the ones accountable. This doesn't seem to be the case in the UK. PHE gathers data and implements policy, but does not actually set that policy -- at least, as far as I'm aware. This means that the Health Secretary is still in control of the policy direction etc, but has also meant that PHE is the one held accountable when the policy that it didn't design goes wrong. Hence why PHE has been blamed for various failings, including by the Government.
I'm careful to say "Health Secretary" rather than "Matt Hancock", because I think this is a structural flaw rather than a political one. The theme running throughout this pandemic, that "no Government could have done better/differently", could be just as well expressed as "politicians have nothing particularly useful to add to public health crisis response". If that's the case, why not set up an agency that is responsible not just for implementing health policy but also for setting it?
The advantage the Swedish had is that the rules were set by an independent body, which provides some level of trust. It would in the UK have been true of any party in power, but if you are motivated even slightly by "what will the voters think?" when making health policy decisions, it has to be the wrong mindset.
A good way of viewing this would be to compare Public Health England with the Swedish equivalent. Over there, the Health Agency is solely and entirely responsible, even to the point where politicians passed legislation that the body required; but that means that they are the ones accountable. This doesn't seem to be the case in the UK. PHE gathers data and implements policy, but does not actually set that policy -- at least, as far as I'm aware. This means that the Health Secretary is still in control of the policy direction etc, but has also meant that PHE is the one held accountable when the policy that it didn't design goes wrong. Hence why PHE has been blamed for various failings, including by the Government.
I'm careful to say "Health Secretary" rather than "Matt Hancock", because I think this is a structural flaw rather than a political one. The theme running throughout this pandemic, that "no Government could have done better/differently", could be just as well expressed as "politicians have nothing particularly useful to add to public health crisis response". If that's the case, why not set up an agency that is responsible not just for implementing health policy but also for setting it?
The main advantage that the Swedish Government has, is that it is served by a civil service that has not been corrupted by damaging groupthink, lack of impartiality and, a blatant disregard for democracy. The bad advice, "off the record" briefings, lack of accountability or performance related structure, and downright partisanship has left our own nigh on unfit for purpose.
I am not blaming our government for acting differently.
Especially as most other governments in the civilised world did the same.
I also realise that when it comes to the UK in particular, you cannot necessarily compare Sweden, or indeed a lot of other countries (such as New Zealand)
But if Sweden's case rate remains low (around 300 per day now) by comparson with the rest of Europe and elsewhere, then it may worth considering.
I don't personally think there will be another lockdown here in any case.
Especially as most other governments in the civilised world did the same.
I also realise that when it comes to the UK in particular, you cannot necessarily compare Sweden, or indeed a lot of other countries (such as New Zealand)
But if Sweden's case rate remains low (around 300 per day now) by comparson with the rest of Europe and elsewhere, then it may worth considering.
I don't personally think there will be another lockdown here in any case.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.