Instead of imposing a strict blockade in March, as many European and Scandinavian countries have done, Sweden’s strategy to tackle the pandemic has been to depend on the individual duty of others to curb the spread of the disease. concept of ‘folkvett’; non-unusual sense of other people as a collective.
The health government has predicted that 40% of Stockholm’s population will have had the disease and obtained antibodies until May 2020; however, the actual prevalence figure was around 15%. While clinical and study findings recommend that severely inflamed patients with COVID-19 acquire antibodies in the rapid and early healing phase of their disease, antibodies are discovered much less in mildly ill or asymptomatic patients. This means that they are unlikely to be immunized and therefore will not be able to serve as a bulwark against the additional spread of infection within the community.
Lead author Professor David Goldsmith said: “It is transparent that not only viral infection, hospitalization and mortality rates (per million inhabitants) are much higher than those observed in neighbouring Scandinavian countries, but also that the temporary evolution of the epidemic in Sweden is different, with continued patience of infection and mortality well beyond the few critical weeks observed in Denmark , Finland and Norway. “It added that in those countries, the immediate closure measures brought in since the beginning of March appeared to have been first and for all, more effective in cutting off the outbreak of infection and, therefore, the negative consequences of COVID-19 across the country.
Professor Goldsmith said: “We in the UK would do well not to forget that we almost followed the same path as Sweden, as collective immunity was discussed here in early March. Today, despite a strict (but late) closure in the UK, and the most resurbed Swedish response, both countries have experienced higher average mortality rates for seven days compared to other Scandinavian and European countries. “