Wednesday, October 27

Sweden sacrificed lives instead of saving lives. Whereas Norway kept the seat belt on.


  • Göran Svensson
    Göran Svensson

    Professor, Kristiana University College

The Swedish government chose to sit down. They left the responsibility for managing the pandemic to a single authority, writes Göran Svensson. In the picture: The border between Norway and Sweden in Svinesund.

Now the question is: Will Norway continue to be more successful than Sweden?

Debate
This is a discussion post. Opinions in the text are the responsibility of the writer.

Now, both Norway and Sweden have eased most of the crown measures. The conclusion is clear: Norway succeeded, while Sweden failed.

Norway chose to take the initiative in the face of the pandemic. The country relied on the safe rather than the uncertain, as dictated by the precautionary principle. The handling of Sweden, on the other hand, lacked foresight. Repeatedly, the Swedes chose to react and act with insufficient measures characterized by decisions made with blinders on.

Has lacked traffic congestion

Norway drives with a driver’s license, while Sweden has had no traffic congestion and crashed countless times. Swedes have driven carelessly and without a seatbelt during the pandemic, despite the prevailing fog and darkness along the road.

Sweden quickly ended up in the ditch with morbid and fatal consequences as a result. While Norway buckled up and drove carefully around curves and over hills, when the fog was thick and the road was full of holes.

Pandemic health data in Sweden has shown from the outset that the connection between the spread of infection, on the one hand, and morbidity and death, on the other, is predictable.

Predictability has changed as vaccination coverage has increased. But it remains unchanged for the unvaccinated, who are still numerous, and poses a significant public health concern.

The health data also showed earlyand unambiguously, the relationship between the number of infected, how many test positive, the number of infected by. 100,000 in one and two weeks, hospitalizations and intensive care and died:

Although these health data have been widely known since the start of the pandemic, the Swedish government and public health authorities have deliberately chosen to expose the population to extensive and serious morbidity, leading to massive deaths.

It seems that the Swedes have been more concerned with saving the national economy than with avoiding human suffering and death.

Studies show that the management of Sweden has sacrificed lives instead of saving lives. In Norway, it appears that health data has been taken very seriously in the planning and execution of pandemic work. This has resulted in stricter measures to protect the population from illness and death.

Norway in the front seat, Sweden in the back seat

In Norway, the government took the initiative and pushed in consultation with various relevant authorities and experts.

The Swedish government, for its part, chose to sit down. They left the responsibility to a single authority, with a responsibility that is limited to public health.

I question the competence and responsibility of the Public Health Authority. He showed an unexpected reluctance to exercise caution when planning and carrying out work against the pandemic.

Of course, it is a political matter that a pandemic requires a government to take political responsibility. It is a responsibility that cannot be transferred to another authority.

It seems that the Swedes have been more concerned with saving the national economy than with avoiding human suffering and death. At the same time Sweden fared worse economically that Norway, which had stricter measures.

Different views on life and death.

Therefore, the Swedish government travels ethically (how should act) and moral (how real doubts about planning and implementation to limit disease and death in the population, according to set goals for pandemic work.

Morbidity and death from. per capita have been respectively 3.5 and 9.5 times higher in Sweden compared to Norway. This despite the fact that the countries are similar in many respects, both economically, socially and culturally.

Norway appears to have interpreted the pandemic as a potentially long-lasting social crisis. The handling of Sweden has been much more short-term.

The Swedes saw a straight line with no optical illusions or blind spots, while Norway saw a winding mountain road with mountain ridges and steep cliffs.

Sweden saw a reflection on the road, that is, herd immunity, which after a year and a half still lurks on the horizon. Norway, for its part, saw dangers lurking on the horizon, and thus avoid going blind.

Norway appears to have interpreted the pandemic as a potentially long-lasting social crisis. The handling of Sweden has been much more short-term.

Drastic consequences

However, a common denominator between Norway and Sweden is that both countries have made conscious decisions in planning and implementation. But one has succeeded and the other has failed.

There have been strategic, tactical, and operational decisions with drastically different consequences for public health, including illness and death.

Summa summaryum: Sweden’s handling of the pandemic seems to have been marked by political flight. Norway has assumed political responsibility. The two countries seem to have different views on life and death.

Now the question is whether Norway will continue to be more successful than Sweden, now that almost all measures have been repealed and the company reopened.

Göran Svensson’s main area is business and management, but he also delves into other disciplines. Last year, it began collecting data on the pandemic to compare how Sweden and Norway handled the threat of Covid-19.



www.aftenposten.no

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *