the Main epidemiologist of Sweden Anders Tegnell gave a short interview to local radio stations and attracted the attention of the whole world: journalists interpreted his words as a recognition of errors committed by the government in the fight against coronavirus.
the Last few days in Sweden the mortality from Covid-19 was the highest in the world in terms of per capita. This is a new reason for criticism of the authorities which supported the position of Agnella and not to impose restrictive measures, allowing people to move freely around the country.
Tegnell really told reporters that something probably could be done differently, but this statement he made is not the first time and choose very careful wording. So why the whole world decided that the enemy of Loktionov apologizes for the mistakes?
Anders Tegnell a few months ago said “no” to lockdown and isolation. This position he holds to this day and she did not apologize.
In an interview with “Radio Sweden”, he acknowledged that in the fight against coronavirus, the country has lost a lot of people. He even admitted that if initially the politicians and scientists would not have the same understanding of the nature of the disease, as it is now, probably, the country could go the other way.
In an interview with Tegnell used careful wording: for example, he said that there is potential to improve adopted in Sweden measures. However, he did not elaborate how it would cost to adjust the strategy, and a few hours later on press-conference confirmed that the current approach is the right one for the country.
According to a Swedish epidemiologist, it is still too early to draw conclusions about whether the right countries were in favour of strict limitations: “Over the past three four months we realized that this disease is likely to start again spread.”
Despite the fact that many of the world’s media now write that Tegnell not just admitted the mistake, but did it for the first time, these allegations are not true. Similar statements epidemiologist did before, for example, said that it is not convinced of the absolute correctness of the Swedish strategy.
Paul Frans, an epidemiologist at Lund University of Sweden, agrees that journalists misinterpreted the statement of Agnella: “of Course, to say that Tegnell apologized is wrong. He apologized for the Swedish strategy and said nothing grandiose. The question worth asking is, why are people so hung up on these words and responded to them?”.
In Sweden, where lives a little more than 10 million people, coronavirus was confirmed in 40 thousand Died from disease 4.5 thousand.
the Norwegian infectious disease specialist Frode Forland in April accused Sweden t��m that country, devising the initial strategy, failed to adapt to reality as soon as it became clear that Covid-19 — no ordinary virus.
“We quickly saw that there are a number of things that distinguish the current pandemic from the seasonal flu: coronavirus is much more contagious and brings about much more severe consequences,” said Forland.
This approach is generally shared by many scientists.
Head of the Department of genetics and molecular epidemiology, Lund University Sweden Paul Franks is confident that the Ministry of health should make decisions based on all available data: “we Need to make sure that you take into account only one something study. That is, the task is to collect as much different information and extract the most useful and on this basis to make a decision.”
“you can Never be absolutely sure of the correctness of the decision, said bi-Bi-si epidemiologist Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford. Only God knows all things, and we are not God. We have different data on the basis of which we can make decisions. But it is worth remembering that science and knowledge do not stand still. They develop, therefore it is necessary to revise our decisions when we get new information”.
In mid-March in Europe, there were two response strategies to the pandemic: French with strict quarantine and British with partial exclusion of vulnerable categories of citizens and an emphasis on group immunity.
Britain had to change its approach, but Sweden continued to rely on this scenario.
the Swedish government decided that, based on trust, an approach will help not to overload the healthcare system. But most importantly, expected Anders Tegnell to develop herd immunity.
in April, Tegnell predicted that by may the residents of Stockholm will develop resistance to the virus. However, in early may of herd immunity among residents of the capital never arose, and Stockholm University has introduced a new model, based on mathematical calculations, according to which immunity must be generated in June.
the model Author Tim Briton in its calculations came from the fact that the result will be achieved when approximately 40-45% of the population have been ill with the coronavirus.
Researchers from the French Institute Pasteur believe that the pandemic can be brought under control through herd immunity in that case, if Covid-19 pereboleet 65% of the population.
Tegnell, commenting on the study, confirmed that the percentage was slightly lower than expected, but added that the study is probably based on older data: the chief epidemiologist of the country believe that the may 21 20% naseleniya capital had coronavirus.
Another reason for criticism of the Swedish model — a high percentage of infection in nursing homes. At the moment it is estimated that around half of all victims of the coronavirus in the country — older people living in nursing homes.
Swedish Authorities were forbidden to visit these institutions only at the end of March, and that after the publication of investigative journalism by the Swedish radio about the number of casualties among residents.
public opinion Polls show that 51% of Swedes support the government and considers the measures adequate to the situation. 31% of respondents cited the actions of the authorities are not convincing enough, the rest gave a neutral rating.
With particular support to the authorities was expressed by the older people: among them, 61% supported the government measures, while in the age group 15-29 years is only 40%.
Director of the who programme on emergency situations Mike Ryan also praised the efforts of Sweden and elaborated a country strategy.
“it seems to Me that there is a something opinion that Sweden did not impose any measures and just let the disease spread. It is infinitely far from the truth,” said Ryan.
moreover, the who expert said that Sweden can be an example for other countries that want to get out of quarantine: “the Authorities relied on its good relations with citizens, the ability and willingness of citizens to comply with social distance. I think if we want to develop new standards, Sweden is an example of how you can get back to life without lockdown”.
in addition, the country was not a burden on the health care system: overcrowded emergency rooms, shortages of equipment and protective equipment for doctors.
Now many of the neighbors of Sweden, opened schools and kindergartens, shops and hairdresser, parks and cafes.
a Swedish doctor Johan Giesecke in his article for the Lancet writes: “it is Already clear that a hard lockdown does not protect the older population and residents of nursing homes, but it was designed specifically for these purposes. Measures to slow the increase in the number of cases can be effective, but lockdown does not prevent the problem — just some people get sick later.”
in addition, in Sweden I repeat: many countries rely on a vaccine, but there is a possibility that an effective drug may not cause. American scientist William Hazeltine, one of the world experts on the study of HIV and the human genome, recently said that would not count on a vaccine in the fight against coronavirus.
Giesecke working together with Agnello, believes that next year all European countries will end up with approximately the same number of deaths from the coronavirus, regardless of the action taken.
Paul Franks from the Lund University of Sweden did not agree with this position: “I have not heard this theory from other scientists and not ready to say that it is absolutely logical from a scientific point of view. At the moment, there are no facts that would support this theory.”
“And in the absence of facts is quite dangerous to make such assumptions. All countries choose a different approach, but none of us no crystal ball that can look and predict what will happen in a year” — the expert concludes.
Olga Prosvirova
