COVID-19: NZ vs SWE
By Peppertree
If the fight against the virus was a football game, we would find ourselves in the typical first 15 to 20 minutes. There are two typical strategies for that phase. One is to throw everything forward to score an early goal in order to demoralise the opposition and provide a buffer to take a breather. The other is to not do anything spectacular, but to focus on a solid defence, check out the opposition’s weaknesses and to build up the game.
NZ has chosen the first strategy and it seems that the early goal has been scored. New infection numbers have dropped to mostly single digits and the number of fatalities is very low, although still increasing. But now the big question is what to do next. Just like the full-on attack mode in football can’t be kept up beyond 20 minutes, the level of lockdown we have can’t be sustained much longer.
The government knows that and that is why Jacinda Ardern is at pains to explain what level 3 will look like. It is becoming clear that there are many inconsistencies in the government’s plans, and criticism is mounting. School principals are saying they feel like they are treated like child care centres, businesses are questioning the seemingly arbitrary restrictions.
Anyone who thought level three would be drastically different from level four will probably be disappointed. The government wants to avoid going back and forth between different levels because people would stop taking it seriously and the compliance rate would drop. Hence the very gradual lifting of restrictions. As a result, life will get more complicated because the blanket ban on anything but essential business is going to be replaced with a long list of exemptions and permissions. Expect to see a lot more debate about what the rules mean and don’t mean and a lot more non-compliance. This is one of the consequences of the “go hard, go early” approach – the next steps are a lot more difficult.
Sweden, on the other hand chose the second strategy. While some of the media reporting about the situation there is exaggerated, the measures the Swedish government took are a lot less drastic. While people are asked to work from home and to avoid contact, there are very few hard rules, other than a ban on assemblies of more than 50 people and on visits to rest homes. Sweden, it seems, has realised that the game lasts 90 minutes and that one needs energy up to the last minute of injury time. The Swedish equivalent to Ashley Bloomfield, Johan Carlson, is reported saying that the country “can live like that until 2022, if we have to”. That is a stark contrast to the situation here.
The comparison of these two countries could be interesting to watch, because despite the different COVID-19 approach, there are a lot of parallels. Both countries have a Labour-Green coalition government and people have a lot of trust in it. Like Jacinda Ardern, the Swedish PM Stefan Löfven holds a daily press conference and has also delivered a highly unusual “speech to the nation”. Both governments say their decisions are based on scientific advice.
Most importantly, neither government was under any illusions about about how fast the virus can spread and how deadly it is. They made a conscious decision to take the path they are on – unlike a lot of other countries who have more or less hit the panic button once infection numbers increased exponentially. But they chose different ways of handling it – the early goal or the 90 minute strategy.
As a result, Sweden now has more infections than NZ and a lot more fatalities. The government there says that the health system is still coping and that long term, this number would be the same as with harsher restrictions, the deaths just occur earlier. But there is increasing criticism of the “Swedish model” from within the country as well, including from a group of 22 scientists who have written an open letter to the government demanding tighter restrictions.
So far the Swedish government has stuck to its strategy. But there is a danger in that too because, unlike football coaches, governments are not very good at realising that something isn’t working and needs to change quickly. They tend to stick with a plan until they are voted out.
We will have to see how this develops. Will people here lose patience and openly flout the rules if restrictions are kept in place for many months? Will the government give in to pressure from economists to restart the economy – whatever that may mean? Will the number of deaths in Sweden increase so dramatically that the government is forced to do an about turn?
If the world football rankings are anything to go by – Sweden is currently ranked 17th, NZ is 122nd.
If the fight against the virus was a football game, we would find ourselves in the typical first 15 to 20 minutes. There are two typical strategies for that phase. One is to throw everything forward to score an early goal in order to demoralise the opposition and provide a buffer to take a breather. The other is to not do anything spectacular, but to focus on a solid defence, check out the opposition’s weaknesses and to build up the game.
NZ has chosen the first strategy and it seems that the early goal has been scored. New infection numbers have dropped to mostly single digits and the number of fatalities is very low, although still increasing. But now the big question is what to do next. Just like the full-on attack mode in football can’t be kept up beyond 20 minutes, the level of lockdown we have can’t be sustained much longer.
The government knows that and that is why Jacinda Ardern is at pains to explain what level 3 will look like. It is becoming clear that there are many inconsistencies in the government’s plans, and criticism is mounting. School principals are saying they feel like they are treated like child care centres, businesses are questioning the seemingly arbitrary restrictions.
Anyone who thought level three would be drastically different from level four will probably be disappointed. The government wants to avoid going back and forth between different levels because people would stop taking it seriously and the compliance rate would drop. Hence the very gradual lifting of restrictions. As a result, life will get more complicated because the blanket ban on anything but essential business is going to be replaced with a long list of exemptions and permissions. Expect to see a lot more debate about what the rules mean and don’t mean and a lot more non-compliance. This is one of the consequences of the “go hard, go early” approach – the next steps are a lot more difficult.
Sweden, on the other hand chose the second strategy. While some of the media reporting about the situation there is exaggerated, the measures the Swedish government took are a lot less drastic. While people are asked to work from home and to avoid contact, there are very few hard rules, other than a ban on assemblies of more than 50 people and on visits to rest homes. Sweden, it seems, has realised that the game lasts 90 minutes and that one needs energy up to the last minute of injury time. The Swedish equivalent to Ashley Bloomfield, Johan Carlson, is reported saying that the country “can live like that until 2022, if we have to”. That is a stark contrast to the situation here.
The comparison of these two countries could be interesting to watch, because despite the different COVID-19 approach, there are a lot of parallels. Both countries have a Labour-Green coalition government and people have a lot of trust in it. Like Jacinda Ardern, the Swedish PM Stefan Löfven holds a daily press conference and has also delivered a highly unusual “speech to the nation”. Both governments say their decisions are based on scientific advice.
Most importantly, neither government was under any illusions about about how fast the virus can spread and how deadly it is. They made a conscious decision to take the path they are on – unlike a lot of other countries who have more or less hit the panic button once infection numbers increased exponentially. But they chose different ways of handling it – the early goal or the 90 minute strategy.
As a result, Sweden now has more infections than NZ and a lot more fatalities. The government there says that the health system is still coping and that long term, this number would be the same as with harsher restrictions, the deaths just occur earlier. But there is increasing criticism of the “Swedish model” from within the country as well, including from a group of 22 scientists who have written an open letter to the government demanding tighter restrictions.
So far the Swedish government has stuck to its strategy. But there is a danger in that too because, unlike football coaches, governments are not very good at realising that something isn’t working and needs to change quickly. They tend to stick with a plan until they are voted out.
We will have to see how this develops. Will people here lose patience and openly flout the rules if restrictions are kept in place for many months? Will the government give in to pressure from economists to restart the economy – whatever that may mean? Will the number of deaths in Sweden increase so dramatically that the government is forced to do an about turn?
If the world football rankings are anything to go by – Sweden is currently ranked 17th, NZ is 122nd.
Comments
Post a Comment