Sweden now officially has the worst coronavirus death toll in the world, calling in to question its controversial decision not to impose lockdown as the pandemic swept through Europe.
In early March, the country opted for minimal restrictions, including the banning of public events of more than 50 people, barring visits to care homes, non-essential travel and anti-crowding rules in bars and restaurants.
The measures had a positive effect despite critics questioning Sweden’s non-authoritarian approach. But from early April, the numbers began to change, showing the country’s death toll was starting to climb.
Figures published by Our World in Data shows Sweden now has the highest death rate per capita in the world. In the seven days between May 12 and 19, Sweden reported, on average, 6.25 COVID-19 deaths per million per day.
The current COVID-19 death toll stands at 4,226 – almost 40 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yahoo News looks at three key factors in the Swedish government’s decision to not impose a full lockdown and how they may have contributed to the rise in fatalities.
‘Restrictions’ on restrictions
The legal framework within which the government of Sweden operates does not directly allow it to impose draconian measures, such as a widespread or nationwide shutdown.
This is because there is no provision in the Swedish constitution that allows the imposition of a state of emergency during peacetime crisis. There are, however, provisions to do so if there is a war.
But on 16 April, the Swedish parliament passed a bill that granted the government decision-making powers to tackle the pandemic. The bill took effect two days later.
The government may use the powers close schools, restaurants, gymnasiums and businesses – but does not give it power to impose a nationwide curfew. 0:04 1:50 Dominic Cummings claims coronavirus affected his eyesight – is poor vision a symptom?
While Sweden suggested many familiar rules that other nations were following – such as keeping distance from others, refraining from going to into the workplace and avoiding non essential journeys – the advice was issued by the country’s Public Health Agency, rather than by the government.
As such, Sweden’s ‘restrictions’ were more advisory than ruling, trusting that Swedes should exercise “common sense” and use “good judgment” when going about their daily lives.
But the country’s former state epidemiologist, Annika Linde, has expressed doubts about the strategy adopted by the Swedish health authority, saying: “Most likely, we would still be a bit worse off (than other Nordic countries) but better off than we are now, and we would possibly have gained time to prepare the strategy to protect the elderly.”
