Most European countries opted for fairly harsh lockdowns, apart from one notable exception – Sweden. Many are arguing that their strategy failed. But has it really? In the news recently was this article was noted: https://www.yahoo.com/news/sweden-tough-covid-laws-country-abandons-nonlockdown-140715544.html
It would appear that the country has now finally changed it’s strategy to align more closely with its neighbours, passing some legislation to allow the government to restrict certain activities of its citizens. However, are the figures really that bad? No, as the article points out, the Swedish death rate is lower than many European countries who have had enforced lockdowns throughout the pandemic.
This begs the question, what do lockdowns really achieve? The most obvious one is they buy time, and allow things like vaccinations to be developed, and of course if you follow them they do stop the spread of infection through avoiding contact with others. But at what cost? The case for and against remains to be seen, however, the big question is are lockdowns (“the cure”) worse than the disease (“SARS-CoV-2”)? The answer will be debated for some time, however, when the balance of all is taken, we may find out that Sweden’s initial strategy was the most sensible. But we shall see…