Sweden v. Georgia: it sounds like a sporting match—(can I have Sweden by 5½ points?)—but it’s actually a high-stakes alternative approach to the battle against COVID-19. (Photo © Ralf Roletschek, Wikimedia Commons.)
It began in Sweden, which—unlike other countries—has had no lockdown, no mandatory restrictions. Instead, using a “trust-based” approach, it merely offered general guidance: work from home when possible, wash your hands, avoid unnecessary travel, and be particularly careful if you are older or suffer preexisting conditions. What it did not to was to shut down business, ban public gatherings, etc.
The impetus appears to have been a conclusion that the virus was bound to spread no matter how strict the control measures, so there was no point in being too draconian, so long as the curve was sufficiently “flattened” that health system wasn’t overwhelmed.
But Swedes are also a community-minded people, the plan’s architect Anders Tegnel told Nature:
As a society, we are more into nudging: continuously reminding people to use measures, improving measures where we see day by day that they need to be adjusted.
That decision has been, to put it mildly, controversial. As of April 25, Sweden had seen 18,177 cases, with 2,192 deaths—a much higher death rate than neighboring Norway, Denmark, Finland and Germany.
But, it has nevertheless flattened the curve and, Tegnel told Business Insider on April 24, enough people in Stockholm have already had the virus for the city (and soon the country as a whole) to develop enough herd immunity to ward off a massive rebound of infections in the fall.
Continue reading Sweden v Georgia: Gambling on COVID-19