Did Sweden’s No-Lockdown Strategy During the COVID Pandemic Work?

 by Ben C

During COVID, I had heard about Sweden’s no lockdown strategy through newspapers in Britain. It seemed as if every week, there was a new story about this strategy. Reports gave the impression that Sweden’s strategy was a huge failure, with newspapers citing evidence for this from Sweden’s higher death rates. Upon further review, I realised that Sweden’s strategy still had some merit to it. At the end of 2022, not only were Sweden’s COVID death rates much lower than Britain’s, but the no lockdown strategy in Sweden had also incurred less negative impacts on society. I thought this was particularly interesting as despite extensive lockdowns, face masks and isolations, when comparing with the outlier of Sweden’s strategy, these measures seemed to have no overall effect on lowering death rates. So what were the circumstances that made Sweden’s no lockdown strategy work so well? And should other countries have implemented a strategy similar to Sweden’s during the pandemic?

The main difference between Sweden’s strategy and the rest of the world’s was that Sweden relied on recommendations. So Sweden recommended that citizens only travel where necessary and stay home if they had COVID-19 symptoms, but this wasn’t enforced. Pre and primary schools remained open, but Sweden did decide to close upper secondary schools (16+) and universities. Whilst most of the world was busy criticising Sweden for locking down, many citizens in Sweden were following recommendations; staying home, only travelling where necessary, not going out to restaurants. In fact, public transport usage in Sweden declined by over 50% as a result of these recommendations. This was interesting as it highlighted strict laws weren’t needed in order to enforce a change in the population. These worked very well for Sweden, but one can’t say for certain as to whether these recommendations would have worked for other countries; Swedes tend to have a higher level of trust in their government, which could explain why they were more willing to follow recommendations. Perhaps Brits and other countries needed laws in order to ensure rules were followed.

The counterargument to this is that many in Britain had a hard time following rules during the pandemic. There are countless examples of prominent British leaders breaking the lockdown rules. Our very own prime minister Boris Johnson wasn’t able to adhere to the rules. Does this then undermine the whole idea of lockdown; if the Prime Minister can’t follow rules, then why should the rest of the population follow rules? Lockdowns just weren’t a sustainable option in the long term, as people just weren’t able to limit the freedoms of their lives for months on end. The Swedish strategy provided a much better option in the long term, with less severe negative societal and economic impacts. I think the most prominent societal impact was that Sweden minimised the negative impacts on children compared to other lockdowns. Schools were closed for months on end in other countries; children’s education was disrupted, which then had severe consequences in the long term. Rates of obesity had risen in children during lockdown, with children doing less physical activity than usual. Equally as importantly, issues of mental health among children rose during the pandemic; increased reports of loneliness as children (and adults) weren’t able to socialise with others. This also led to some children developing social anxiety, as their normal school experience had been disrupted. Sweden didn’t have this problem, as most children were still able to enjoy the benefits of their education. In terms of which strategy worked better in the long term for society, Sweden comes out as the clear winner here. 

When comparing the raw data, I had first thought that Sweden would have incurred a much higher death rate than others who had locked down. This made sense; in theory, lockdowns were meant to curb the infection rate of the virus. At the beginning of the pandemic, when virtually every other country introduced a lockdown, Sweden’s death rates were one of the highest in the world. At this point, it seemed like Sweden had made a miscalculation; other countries were ridiculing Sweden’s choice, and it seemed like this was justified. 

But as the pandemic went on, other countries started to have higher death rates than Sweden. It seemed as if Sweden’s strategy was paying off; lockdowns had delayed the spread of the virus but hadn’t actually prevented it. 

At the end of the pandemic, Sweden’s death rates from Covid were somewhere around the middle of countries in Europe, which was surprising considering all those other countries had implemented a full scale lockdown. Sweden had a death rate of 2322 deaths per million, higher than Finland at only 1802 but much lower than the UK, at 3378. This highlights that lockdowns don't actually work when the aim is to minimise the spread of the virus. If the aim however, is to delay the spread of the virus, then perhaps lockdowns are the way to go, shown by Sweden’s higher death rates at the beginning of the pandemic. 

When looking back at Sweden’s no lockdown strategy, it is clear that it had some merit to it. Allowing citizens to exercise their individual judgement meant that Sweden minimised the negative long term societal impacts. If another pandemic comes about, I hope that other countries will look back at Sweden’s no lockdown strategy and realise that blind panic and a total shutdown of society isn’t the best way to deal with a virus in the long term.