As the Covid-19 pandemic took hold in March 2020, billions of people around the world were confined to their homes. National lockdowns became the norm in most countries, with people only allowed to leave for essential activities or exercise. However, a few nations, including Sweden, chose a different path, avoiding severe restrictions on movement and instead relying on voluntary behavioral changes and targeted measures. Now, five years later, the question remains: Was Sweden’s approach the right one?
In many countries, including neighboring Norway, Denmark, and Finland, strict lockdowns were implemented to curb the spread of Covid-19. Sweden, however, refrained from such measures, opting instead for a strategy that encouraged voluntary social distancing, restrictions on large gatherings, and a focus on protecting vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly. This unique approach was met with both praise and criticism, and in the years following, experts have analyzed whether Sweden’s decision ultimately proved beneficial.
Anna Mc Manus, a resident of Gothenburg, Sweden, recalls feeling confident in her government’s decision at the time. While many other nations imposed strict restrictions, including banning pet owners from walking their dogs, Mc Manus believed Sweden’s more measured response was the right choice. However, she admits uncertainty now, especially when reflecting on the number of deaths that occurred in care homes, which became a point of criticism in Sweden’s approach.
A 2024 study by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health compared excess deaths across Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland during the early years of the pandemic. The study found that Sweden saw a significant spike in excess deaths during the initial waves of Covid-19 in 2020, as the virus spread more freely compared to its neighboring countries that implemented stricter lockdowns. However, in the following years, while excess mortality fell in the lockdown nations, it rose in Sweden, highlighting the long-term effects of the virus.
Sweden’s strategy, while controversial, appeared to have fewer economic costs than the strict lockdowns in neighboring countries. Some economists argue that Sweden’s lower economic impact makes its approach more justifiable, despite the higher death toll in the early stages. One study, conducted by German economists, suggests that Sweden’s voluntary measures had a similar impact to lockdowns, as many citizens took it upon themselves to limit their movement.
However, not all experts agree with Sweden’s approach. Nele Brusselaers, a Swedish epidemiologist who criticized the country’s strategy, moved to Belgium during the pandemic. She argues that while the strategy may have saved the economy, it did not do enough to protect lives. Brusselaers notes the intense backlash she faced for speaking out on social media, pointing to the heated debate still surrounding Sweden’s approach.
As more data becomes available, the debate continues about the effectiveness of Sweden’s Covid-19 strategy. The long-term impacts on both public health and the economy remain subjects of discussion, but one thing is clear: the decision not to impose a lockdown in Sweden continues to shape the global conversation about how to handle pandemics in the future.
