“Thank you for reminding me,” said Anders Tegnell, the Swedish state epidemiologist. Observer he asked at the end of March how science was to blame if Sweden’s decision to drop the blockade went wrong.
“But seriously,” he continued, “I could look like a main character, but the Swedish agencies work very well overall. It’s not something I decide on my own in my office every morning. “
The message was clear. He did not believe he would be held accountable if the easy-to-reach Covid-19 regime associated with his name failed.
On Friday, as Sweden registered 9,654 new cases and 100 deaths, the country’s prime minister, Stefan Löfven, suggested he might be right.
“This number of victims – of course we wanted to avoid this. You don’t want to see anything, “he said, announcing the end of Sweden’s long hurdle against recommending face masks. “But … the responsibility here is not so easy, to indicate exactly one person [and say] “You are responsible.”
When Tegnell informed Boris Johnson in late September, it still seemed possible that the widespread spread of the infection in Sweden in the spring would provide enough immunity to make a second wave easier to control.
Now that these hopes have been shattered, with the level of new daily cases, hospitalizations and deaths again far above that observed in the country’s northern neighbors, Dr. Tegnell and his former boss Johan Giesecke are no longer given around daily interviews of immunity lawyers British and American media.
But the change of opinion in Sweden is even more pronounced. This is partly due to the failure of Tegnell’s Public Health Agency to anticipate the severity of the second wave, partly due to frightening reports from the country’s health surveillance commission and the coronavirus commission and, in part, due to a more critical support.
Even the country’s king, Carl XVI Gustaf, described the country’s treatment of the pandemic as a “failure” in the Christmas magazines of the year.
“Opinion in Sweden has really changed: there is widespread criticism of the strategy and [a sense] that I really failed, ”said Jenny Madestam, an associate professor of politics at Södertorn University in Stockholm.
In March and April, the media tended to defend rather than criticize the authorities, and dissident researchers, who sounded the alarm in early April, called the “crown scandal-mongers” and “a disgrace to Sweden.” , in the pages of the debate.
Eva Burman, regional editor-in-chief Eskilstuna-Kuriren The newspaper recalls how its shocking May revelations about how elderly people in nursing homes were denied hospital treatment were ignored.
“This story was never published in other works: I think maybe it was such a big story that they couldn’t take it into account. They thought it might not be true,” she said. “I don’t know why the Swedish media has been so slow to ask critical questions.”
But, according to Marina Ghersetti, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Gothenburg, this is typical of the way the Swedish media operates in a crisis. “It simply came to our notice then. At the beginning, when everything is uncertain and chaotic, the emphasis is … on transmitting the information that the public authorities provide to the media, without questioning this information very much “, she said.
“One possible explanation for this is that even those in the media share the great trust we have in public authorities.”
Only after the situation becomes more stable does the Swedish media – almost the same – become critical and begin to investigate. “We have this expression, ‘herd behavior,’ a kind of consensus: when one person really starts researching and investigating, so do the others,” Ghersetti said.
“Every major newspaper, radio and television, has really begun to research this, not only in the conditions of nursing homes, but also in strategy.”
This month, the Swedish Health and Welfare Inspectorate reported “serious shortcomings” in the treatment of the elderly, confirming the Burman newspaper’s story.
Sweden’s mortality rate
As few as one in 20 patients suspected of coronavirus have seen a doctor physically. Several regions have issued guidelines to provide that no caregiver should receive hospital treatment for any illness or injury. Some doctors had recommended palliative care without even looking at patients’ files.
Then, the first report of the country’s coronavirus commission, released on Tuesday, harshly criticized the government and the Public Health Agency, saying they “failed” to protect the elderly.
Despite a very limited mandate, limited to investigating deaths in care homes, the commission criticized the strategy, arguing that “the most important factor behind … the large number of deaths in residential care is the general spread of the virus in society.”
Public confidence in Tegnell has now dropped to 59 percent, the lowest level since the pandemic began, according to a survey by Ipsos last week. In October, it received the support of 72% of respondents.
Asked if she or anyone else should resign, Health Minister Lena Hallengren emphasized how fragmented Sweden’s health system is. The responsibility for daily health care lies with the 21 regions, for the care of the elderly with the municipalities. Opposition parties, she added, backed the strategy in the spring and summer.
It would be easy to say, “It’s me, or it’s him or her,” but we’re in the middle of a pandemic and trying to make this solution extremely easy. [demanding resignations], which is not a solution and does not provide us with a better care sector for the elderly, I do not know. “
But both Burman and Madestam have said their resignations will eventually come, with Madestam predicting that Tegnell’s boss Johan Carlson, who is due to retire in October, could resign.
“I did not see the end of this,” Burman agreed. “I think Christmas will bring an even steeper curve and we will have even more deaths. I think someone will have to resign. Otherwise, we send a very strong signal to our society that no one is taking responsibility ”.