Allison Pearson meets Anders Tegnell: Lockdown was never on the agenda in Sweden
telegraph.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
I caution others about the vagueness in what "lockdown" means, and the tendency to, in my opinion, minimize the changes that were in Sweden.
I live in a smaller city in Sweden. The city library was essentially closed (you could pre-order books and pick them up). The local kids science center was closed. In summer they usually open the sluice gates on the city's dam at 3pm for the locals and tourists to gawk. That was shut down to prevent (outdoor) crowding, and the dam's visitor center and tours were shut down. Upper education mostly switched to distant learning - as the article even points out.
I don't see how all of that characterized as "voluntary". Even if the national government didn't order specific things closed and locked down, the regional and local governments sure did.
And the idea there were "no masks" is an exaggeration. As the article later points out, "15 per cent of travellers" work a mask. Even today I saw someone wearing a mask.
The phrase "digging his heels in to protect children who were at remarkably little risk from Covid" also doesn't reflect how our preschool's policies changed. At the start of COVID, only kids who were 100% healthy (not even sniffles) were allowed to come. This later changed to having to stay at home until the kid was happy and energetic for 48 hours, but was still stricter than the pre-COVID rules. And part of the reason for these changes was to protect the school staff, not just the children.
We are very grateful that our kids could be at preschool even during the height of the pandemic. But I also have anecdotal evidence those temporarily stricter health rules were effective - for about 18 months our kids were NOT bringing home the preschool crud they used to get ... and are once again getting now that the rules have relaxed again.
I'm very glad the situation here wasn't like the UK's stay-at-home orders. But to characterize it as only "a ban on gatherings of over 50 people and a few rules for restaurants" where all other changes were voluntary is someone trying to sell you something shady.
Public libraries were closed but you still could get books? It is annoyance compared to what happened in other places.
The problem here is not that Sweden had some minor restrictions. The problem is that the restrictions in other countries caused great harm with very little gain and that we still haven't acknowledged that.
There's a certain narrative to downplay the actual restrictions that were here in Sweden, often in articles opposed to stricter restrictions elsewhere, even justifiably opposed.
This article is one of them.
Thing is, there is no need to downplay that Swedish government authorities did actually close down quite a few things - far beyond what the article lists - and no need to claim that the other changes which occurred were "voluntary."
The overall conclusion would still be the same - the restrictions by the Swedish authorities were nowhere near as strict as in other countries, yet without disastrous consequences.
More importantly, it wouldn't come across like the author trying to pull a fast one via a dishonest comparison, which the paper's readership wouldn't recognize as being dishonest.
If they can't get the easy parts right, why should I trust them with the hard parts?
As I concluded in my previous comment: I'm very glad the situation here wasn't like the UK's stay-at-home orders. But to characterize it as only "a ban on gatherings of over 50 people and a few rules for restaurants" where all other changes were voluntary is someone trying to sell you something shady.