Coronavirus pandemic in the Nordic countries: Health policy and economy trade-off.

Background: Countries making up the Nordic region - Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden - have minimal socioeconomic, cultural, and geographical differences between them, allowing for a fair comparative analysis of the health policy and economy trade-off in their national approaches towards mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study utilized publicly available COVID-19 data of the Nordic countries from January 2020 to January 3, 2021. COVID-19 epidemiology, public health and health policy, health system capacity, and macroeconomic data were analysed for each Nordic country. Joinpoint regression analysis was performed to identify changes in temporal trends using average monthly percent change (AMPC) and average weekly percent change (AWPC). Results: Sweden's health policy, being by far the most relaxed response to COVID-19, was found to have the largest COVID-19 incidence and mortality, and the highest AWPC increases for both indicators (13.5, 95% CI = 5.6, 22.0, P < 0.001; 6.3, 95% CI = 3.5, 9.1, P < 0.001). Denmark had the highest number of COVID-19 tests per capita, consistent with their approach of increased testing as a preventive strategy for disease transmission. Iceland had the second-highest number of tests per capita due to their mass-testing, contact tracing, quarantine and isolation response. Only Norway had a significant increase in unemployment (AMPC = 2.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-4.9, P < 0.009) while the percentage change in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was insignificant for all countries. Conclusions: There was no trade-off between public health policy and economy during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Nordic region. Sweden's relaxed and delayed COVID-19 health policy response did not benefit the economy in the short term, while leading to disproportionate COVID-19 hospitalizations and mortality.

Evaluation of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden

Sweden was well equipped to prevent the pandemic of COVID-19 from becoming serious. Over 280 years of collaboration between political bodies, authorities, and the scientific community had yielded many successes in preventive medicine. Sweden’s population is literate and has a high level of trust in authorities and those in power. During 2020, however, Sweden had ten times higher COVID-19 death rates compared with neighbouring Norway. In this report, we try to understand why, using a narrative approach to evaluate the Swedish COVID-19 policy and the role of scientific evidence and integrity. We argue that that scientific methodology was not followed by the major figures in the acting authorities—or the responsible politicians—with alternative narratives being considered as valid, resulting in arbitrary policy decisions. In 2014, the Public Health Agency merged with the Institute for Infectious Disease Control;the first decision by its new head (Johan Carlson) was to dismiss and move the authority’s six professors to Karolinska Institute. With this setup, the authority lacked expertise and could disregard scientific facts. The Swedish pandemic strategy seemed targeted towards “natural” herd-immunity and avoiding a societal shutdown. The Public Health Agency labelled advice from national scientists and international authorities as extreme positions, resulting in media and political bodies to accept their own policy instead. The Swedish people were kept in ignorance of basic facts such as the airborne SARS-CoV-2 transmission, that asymptomatic individuals can be contagious and that face masks protect both the carrier and others. Mandatory legislation was seldom used;recommendations relying upon personal responsibility and without any sanctions were the norm. Many elderly people were administered morphine instead of oxygen despite available supplies, effectively ending their lives. If Sweden wants to do better in future pandemics, the scientific method must be re-established, not least within the Public Health Agency. It would likely make a large difference if a separate, independent Institute for Infectious Disease Control is recreated. We recommend Sweden begins a self-critical process about its political culture and the lack of accountability of decision-makers to avoid future failures, as occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic.