Chapter 1: The Evolution of COVID-19

In just three months, COVID-19 has transformed from a localized issue in Wuhan to a global crisis. Most nations have chosen to enforce strict lockdowns to mitigate the virus's spread. But how do these lockdown measures actually work, and why are some countries opting out of them? The World Health Organization has recommended nationwide lockdowns and extensive testing since the onset of the pandemic. However, widespread testing remains a challenge in many areas. The logic behind these lockdowns is straightforward: if individuals stay indoors, the virus cannot spread. For numerous countries, this approach has proven effective; for instance, as of April 8, Wuhan has begun lifting its lockdown after 76 days, while Norway reported no new cases for two consecutive days.

Norway has taken lockdown measures seriously since March 12, shutting down airports, schools, universities, and non-essential businesses, in addition to closing borders with neighboring countries. While these actions have significantly impacted the economy, the results are promising: only 108 deaths and 6,000 confirmed cases—numbers that appear to be stabilizing. This positions Norway as one of the safest countries globally. In contrast, Sweden presents a different scenario.

As of this writing, Sweden has recorded 10,151 cases and 887 deaths, with projections indicating an upward trend in fatalities. The Swedish Public Health Agency continues to assert that a nationwide lockdown is unnecessary. Rather unusually, they have chosen to focus on public advisories about the disease, simply "recommending" that individuals stay home. State Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell explains that the goal is to "flatten the curve" and prevent the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed. Unlike other European nations, Sweden seems to trust its citizens to act sensibly without mandates. To some, this strategy may appear overly optimistic, akin to allowing a child to handle fragile items without supervision.

However, a deeper examination reveals that the situation is more complex. Sweden operates under a set of Basic Laws, akin to the U.S. Constitution. One key law guarantees citizens' freedom of association and assembly. While there is legislation permitting the government to restrict specific areas to prevent disease transmission, the scope of such restrictions is contentious. A lockdown too extensive could infringe on constitutional freedoms, making the prospect of a nationwide lockdown akin to asking Americans to relinquish their firearms.

Nonetheless, it's plausible that Sweden's approach has underlying motivations. The debate over constitutional rights should not overshadow the urgency of protecting vulnerable populations. Similar to Iran, Sweden might be hesitant to impose a full lockdown due to potential economic collapse. By allowing some exposure to the virus, the government could be banking on developing herd immunity, thereby avoiding overwhelming healthcare facilities and keeping the economy functioning.

Despite my critical stance on Sweden's strategy, it's premature to declare which approach is most effective. If their strategy succeeds, Sweden could emerge from the pandemic with a viable economy and substantial herd immunity, though I find this outcome unlikely. As Tegnell suggests, "Sooner or later, people are going to go out anyway." The question remains: what is the purpose of enforcing a lockdown? Only time will reveal the answer.

Words by Olly Singleton

Chapter 2: Future Implications of the Swedish Approach

The long-term effects of Sweden's strategy will unfold as the pandemic progresses.