• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What are the main differences between the approaches of the UK and Sweden?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spamcan81

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
1,079
Location
Bedfordshire
Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...uld-you-take-regarding-covid-just-now.210830/
It has become quite clear now that Sweden which took a much more relaxed approach to Covid is in no worse off than the UK in terms of deaths early on - is now seeing much lower infection rates.

If only the UK had stuck with the original strategy.

Main difference between Sweden and the UK, apart from population size and distribution, is that the Swedes were/are much more compliant regarding social distancing etc. than us Brits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,553
Location
UK
Main difference between Sweden and the UK, apart from population size and distribution, is that the Swedes were/are much more compliant regarding social distancing etc. than us Brits.
Is there any evidence of that, or are you just making up reasons why it wouldn't work here?
 

oldman

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,027
It has become quite clear now that Sweden which took a much more relaxed approach to Covid is in no worse off than the UK in terms of deaths early on - is now seeing much lower infection rates.
Sweden is also having a second wave - highest daily infection figure this week 3396, last week 1869, week before 1180. And their cumulative death rate per 100K population is 58, Denmark and Germany 12.

Just comparing random countries is pointless. The worst affected European countries are Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Britain - and Sweden. It would be reasonable to ask why Sweden is so different from its obvious comparators.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,553
Location
UK
Sweden is also having a second wave - highest daily infection figure this week 3396, last week 1869, week before 1180. And their cumulative death rate per 100K population is 58, Denmark and Germany 12.

Just comparing random countries is pointless. The worst affected European countries are Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Britain - and Sweden. It would be reasonable to ask why Sweden is so different from its obvious comparators.
Once again, completely missing the point. If lockdowns and restrictions are so effective, one would expect Sweden to be significantly worse than those countries with endemic coronavirus.

Of course, taking measures to stop Coronavirus from getting into the country is more effective, but that ship sailed in February.
 

oldman

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,027
one would expect Sweden to be significantly worse than those countries with endemic coronavirus.
It is significantly worse than Germany and Denmark, as I pointed out, and their death rate per 100K is slightly higher than that of France. Perhaps (perhaps, I don't pretend to know) if they had followed those countries' strategies, they would be in a better place.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,553
Location
UK
It is significantly worse than Germany and Denmark, as I pointed out, and their death rate per 100K is slightly higher than that of France. Perhaps (perhaps, I don't pretend to know) if they had followed those countries' strategies, they would be in a better place.
Again, that's not the point, the point is that they're not significantly worse than the countries mentioned who did lockdown, which suggests that the measures were ineffective at reducing deaths.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,083
Location
Yorks
It is significantly worse than Germany and Denmark, as I pointed out, and their death rate per 100K is slightly higher than that of France. Perhaps (perhaps, I don't pretend to know) if they had followed those countries' strategies, they would be in a better place.

They'd likely be in the same place as those countries, only with the damaging effects of a lockdown to contend with.
 

oldman

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,027
Again, that's not the point, the point is that they're not significantly worse than the countries mentioned who did lockdown, which suggests that the measures were ineffective at reducing deaths.
You are still taking one variable and asserting that is the reason for different outcomes. Why won't you engage with the difference between Sweden and Denmark?
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,553
Location
UK
You are still taking one variable and asserting that is the reason for different outcomes. Why won't you engage with the difference between Sweden and Denmark?
Because it's irrelevant, the time for stopping it from getting into widespread circulation in the UK has passed, unless we have a time machine, we can't follow Denmark's path.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,908
Location
Yorkshire
Is there any evidence of that, or are you just making up reasons why it wouldn't work here?
i am currently returning from Sweden; the claim in the above post is nonsense.

There is no significant material difference between behaviour in Sweden and the UK in this regard.

You are still taking one variable and asserting that is the reason for different outcomes. Why won't you engage with the difference between Sweden and Denmark?
Have you been to cities like Stockholm, Malmö and Gothenburg? If you claim they are more like Danish cities than British cities, I put it to you that you are mistaken.

The reality is that cities like Stockholm are not that different to British cities; as I posted on this forum before, Anders Tegnell has pointed out that comparisons with Scandinavian countries are flawed. He is absolutely right.

People who make these ludicrous comparisons are also doing so too early. As Tegnell said a few months ago, "judge me in a year"

This was all discussed in previous threads on this forum and nothing has materially changed since then.

I can't believe there are so many badly informed people making up nonsense on social media; but we are better than that on this forum!
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
All I can safely say in relation to this is Sweden was right.

They have written the pandemic rule book as far as I’m concerned.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,506
All I can safely say in relation to this is Sweden was right.

They have written the pandemic rule book as far as I’m concerned.

The Swedes have got right, even the Aussies too have dealt with it all sensibly.

CJ
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,767
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
All I can safely say in relation to this is Sweden was right.

They have written the pandemic rule book as far as I’m concerned.
A little more nuanced than that.

The Swedish response was (probably) right for Sweden. I was recently listening to an episode of The Inquiry on the World Service, where a Swedish scientist defended their response, but added that it only worked because of the way Swedish society is structured and behaves. There are differences in the UK that means a Swedish response is currently not feasible. For example, their test-track-trace system: Sweden carries out 100k+ tests a day in a country of 10 million (that's 1% of the population). The serious and significant flaws in the UK equivalent is well documented, and we are well below Sweden's rate of testing.

I'd point to a few major failures:
  1. Awful test-trace-isolate system
  2. Constant re-importing of cases from abroad
  3. Lack of public trust in the government (and rightly so) with a significant breakdown of any sort of cohesion


If the UK government had got its act together during the first lockdown and actually done some proper preparation, we could be in a much better situation. They didn't, and we're forced into the 'correct' decsion in the circumstances. I'm livid this has happened.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,083
Location
Yorks
A little more nuanced than that.

The Swedish response was (probably) right for Sweden. I was recently listening to an episode of The Inquiry on the World Service, where a Swedish scientist defended their response, but added that it only worked because of the way Swedish society is structured and behaves. There are differences in the UK that means a Swedish response is currently not feasible. For example, their test-track-trace system: Sweden carries out 100k+ tests a day in a country of 10 million (that's 1% of the population). The serious and significant flaws in the UK equivalent is well documented, and we are well below Sweden's rate of testing.

I'd point to a few major failures:
  1. Awful test-trace-isolate system
  2. Constant re-importing of cases from abroad
  3. Lack of public trust in the government (and rightly so) with a significant breakdown of any sort of cohesion


If the UK government had got its act together during the first lockdown and actually done some proper preparation, we could be in a much better situation. They didn't, and we're forced into the 'correct' decsion in the circumstances. I'm livid this has happened.

Not wishing to defend our Government, but France, Spain etc seem to be in a similar position.

In terms of structure of society, I'm generally sceptical that other western countries operate in a massively different way. Except perhaps a different proportion of multi-generational households.

I wonder how Sweden has dealt with school and university reopenings, bearing in mind that that seems to have significantly increased the problems here.

It definitely would have been better to have kept university on line. Not what uni's all about, but at least the students would have still been able to socialise and have the support of their old school friends.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,296
A little more nuanced than that.

The Swedish response was (probably) right for Sweden. I was recently listening to an episode of The Inquiry on the World Service, where a Swedish scientist defended their response, but added that it only worked because of the way Swedish society is structured and behaves. There are differences in the UK that means a Swedish response is currently not feasible. For example, their test-track-trace system: Sweden carries out 100k+ tests a day in a country of 10 million (that's 1% of the population). The serious and significant flaws in the UK equivalent is well documented, and we are well below Sweden's rate of testing.

I'd point to a few major failures:
  1. Awful test-trace-isolate system
  2. Constant re-importing of cases from abroad
  3. Lack of public trust in the government (and rightly so) with a significant breakdown of any sort of cohesion


If the UK government had got its act together during the first lockdown and actually done some proper preparation, we could be in a much better situation. They didn't, and we're forced into the 'correct' decsion in the circumstances. I'm livid this has happened.
Indeed, the article linked in this Tweet is interesting on just how many differences there are between Sweden and Britain, and how the impulse to treat Sweden as a libertarian alternative to British policy misses significant nuances - https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1322458539294707712?s=20.

It is from The Spectator of 31st March, by Simon Clarke, and entitled "What Lockdown Sceptics get wrong about Sweden". It needs to be read in full, but some key passages are worth note:
A sober look at Sweden, in fact, shows that it is far from the great success story some so desperately want it to be.

Supporters of the Swedish approach would correctly point out that, compared to the UK, it has had fewer deaths per million than we have had. Sweden’s strategy has also done less damage to its economy than if it had adopted a more stringent lockdown. But comparing Sweden to Britain only makes sense if you think we have had a particularly successful pandemic. We haven’t. And neither has Sweden when you compare it to its Nordic neighbours: Norway, Finland and Denmark. The worst performing of those, Denmark, suffered 109 Covid-19 deaths per million people between 13 February and 19 September; Sweden lost 574 lives per million people over the same period. Covid cost Denmark 7.4 per cent of GDP in the second quarter of 2020; Sweden sacrificed 8.6 per cent of its GDP.

What’s more, a closer inspection of Sweden’s death data reveals something else. While the UK lost 626 lives per million to Covid-19 from 13 February to 19 September, our fatalities were more front-loaded than Sweden’s. In other words, Britain had fewer deaths per capita than Sweden after lockdown had made its impact. Both countries had an early surge in infections prior to their respective restrictions kicking in. Our lockdown brought initially higher fatality numbers down to a level lower than Sweden’s. The people who died here in April were overwhelmingly infected in the weeks and months before lockdown was introduced in late March. Their fates, sadly, had already been sealed by that point.
Sweden has an array of other inbuilt advantages: its relatively low population density compared to other wealthy European nations (England is 17 times more densely populated) being the most obvious. While 40 per cent of Swedish households are single person, compare that to just 28 per cent in England. These factors gave Sweden a huge advantage long before the virus ever appeared on its shores. Interpersonal interactions, after all, are how the virus spreads: reduce them and you reduce the number of infections.
Those in favour of the Swedish approach often make another point: Swedes are freely living their lives to the full, so why can’t we emulate them? This argument, I’m afraid, does not stand up to scrutiny. You see, the authorities there didn’t need to order people to stay at home to reduce their contacts, Swedes just do it anyway. Data on mobility shows that the populations of Sweden and the UK reduced their movements and interactions by a similar amount at the start of the pandemic. The difference? We were compelled to do it. So the question then becomes whether that was really necessary.
The state epidemiologists advised the public to avoid non-essential travel, to work from home where possible and to avoid visiting the elderly in hospitals or care homes. And the Swedes, on the whole, complied like diligent citizens. Ticket sales at the national rail operator fell by 77 per cent and the tourism industry took a substantial hit. Attendance at cinemas almost completely stopped. Indeed, Filmstaden, the country’s largest chain of picture houses closed voluntarily because of the lack of paying customers.
It is also a mistake to think that the Swedes take civic responsibility without any threat of punishment if they don’t. For instance, those who run bars, cafés or restaurants are responsible for social distancing inside their premises, just like British owners are. But in Sweden they are also responsible for what goes on outside, too. Local authorities close down those that get it wrong.
Another complaint often made is that Sweden is less restrictive when it comes to public gatherings, initially limiting them to 500 but subsequently lowering them to a maximum of 50 (a tacit acknowledgement of the role such events play in driving infections). England’s ‘rule of six’ has recently superseded a limit of 30, but unlike in Sweden we have never needed to apply to the police for a permit. In Sweden, applying for a permit costs 320 krona (£28) — and there is no guarantee of getting it.
While Swedes’ freedoms were not infringed to the same extent as ours during April and May, the increasingly popular notion that life there carried on as normal is nonsense. Their restrictions have, by and large, remained in place over the summer.
Neither is Sweden’s current low number of fatalities evidence of strategic success. If they thought their death level would stay flat without further action, they would not now be asking people to restrict their movements in certain regions.
Sweden has been built up to be something that it’s not. The visible differences in the spring — pictures of children going to school and people enjoying restaurants and bars — has convinced frustrated libertarians that Sweden's choices were all better than ours. Swedes have a deserved reputation for good design, but they do not have a monopoly on wisdom. National differences require different national strategies and there is no low-cost, flat-pack solution to Britain’s Covid difficulties.
Lest anyone assume that I am just dismissing the Swedish response, and seeking lockdown, I also think Clarke writes well about the New Zealand response:
it has, of course, killed their biggest export earner, tourism, which accounts for about 10 per cent of GDP. Overall their hit was 12.2 per cent of GDP between April and June.You might think that New Zealand’s economic damage hasn't been all that bad compared to other developed countries, especially given their very low infection and death numbers (fewer than 2,000 diagnosed infections and 25 deaths). But the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has set Kiwis on a course to ‘eliminate the virus’. Sounds great, but for how long will she hold that line? In order to sustain its near virus-free status, New Zealand will have to maintain its quarantine system until a vaccine comes along. If we don’t have one any time soon, then she will either have to retreat or keep New Zealand in a semi cut-off twilight zone where its citizens won’t be able to engage fully with the outside world. That really would be a case of the treatment being worse than the disease.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,908
Location
Yorkshire
Have they? I'd suggest, based on this chart, Finland has got it right and that the government will reimpose the 14 day quarantine for arrivals from Sweden next week due to their accelerating infection rate.
I don't understand the point you are making. The point we re making is that Sweden has so far deployed measures that has a long term exit strategy and have struck a sensible balance

Swedish cities are comparable to British cities; anyone who claims otherwise probably hasn't visited them. If anyone is suggesting Sweden and Finland can be compared, that's frankly laughable.

Indeed, the article linked in this Tweet is interesting on just how many differences there are between Sweden and Britain, and how the impulse to treat Sweden as a libertarian alternative to British policy misses significant nuances - https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1322458539294707712?s=20.
Once you have provided a quote of the relevant text I will take a look at what you are referring to, but having recently visited Sweden, I can't agree.

I think the biggest difference between us and Sweden is actually that we have far more unhealthy/obese people in Britain; at least that was my observation, and others with me noticed this too. I suspect our death rate is higher compared to many countries as a result.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,137
a Swedish scientist defended their response, but added that it only worked because of the way Swedish society is structured and behaves.

Swedish cities are comparable to British cities; anyone who claims otherwise probably hasn't visited them.

Whilst I cannot question Yorkie's statement, I assume he means in terms of size, density etc, not in terms of society. I read a newspaper article (Telegraph?) from a reporter who was living in Sweden, and although there was no official lockdown, the way Swedish society operates, they observed an unofficial lockdown - they worked from home, did not socialise etc. So maybe if Sweden was successful, it wasn't by design.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I also think Clarke writes well about the New Zealand response:


Seeing as the vaccine doesn't seem to be the wonder-cure everyone was hoping it would be, it's an even tougher choice now
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,767
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Whilst I cannot question Yorkie's statement, I assume he means in terms of size, density etc, not in terms of society. I read a newspaper article (Telegraph?) from a reporter who was living in Sweden, and although there was no official lockdown, the way Swedish society operates, they observed an unofficial lockdown - they worked from home, did not socialise etc. So maybe if Sweden was successful, it wasn't by design.
Or the government decided that it could trust the way the society operates, and that was the design.

It doesn't undermine your overall point though.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,908
Location
Yorkshire
The quotes provided by 35B are nothing new, have been debunked before, and do not match my experience, having just got back from a trip to Sweden.

There really is no material difference between social distancing in Sweden than the UK; the only difference is people don't wear masks there (with a tiny number of exceptions)

The nonsense about population density ignores the facts that the main cities are actually similar to British cities in many respects, including density. I know this because I did extensive walking in suburbs to see for myself, along with other forum members

The idea that everyone there is 'staying at home' is either just plain wrong or outdated.

The majority of people in Sweden seem to be acting no different than the majority of people in Britain; if anything things were more 'normal' there than they are here, including significantly more usage of public transport (I'm sure their numbers will be down, but the difference compared to the UK was extremely stark).

I'm not going to let misinformation go unchallenged; part of the reason for my trip was to see for myself, and I am glad I'm in a position to dubunk the false claims with personal experience
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,908
Location
Yorkshire
Not making up anything at all. I do read news reports you know.
And so do I. But I have now been there and seen for myself and there really is no material difference between the general behaviour of most people in either country in this regard. I say with personal experience that your earlier statement is simply not true.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,602
Location
London
The quotes provided by 35B are nothing new, have been debunked before, and do not match my experience, having just got back from a trip to Sweden.

There really is no material difference between social distancing in Sweden than the UK; the only difference is people don't wear masks there (with a tiny number of exceptions)

The nonsense about population density ignores the facts that the main cities are actually similar to British cities in many respects, including density. I know this because I did extensive walking in suburbs to see for myself, along with other forum members

The idea that everyone there is 'staying at home' is either just plain wrong or outdated.

The majority of people in Sweden seem to be acting no different than the majority of people in Britain; if anything things were more 'normal' there than they are here, including significantly more usage of public transport (I'm sure their numbers will be down, but the difference compared to the UK was extremely stark).

I'm not going to let misinformation go unchallenged; part of the reason for my trip was to see for myself, and I am glad I'm in a position to dubunk the false claims with personal experience

So what does explain the difference in your opinion then? You've stated several times that it doesn't match your experience (and I'm wary of anecdotes), and that other people have written "nonsense", so what is your informed view? Scandanavian pysche is definitely different to British pysche and I doubt that just a more unhealthy population is to blame. A more unequal society and a more diverse society (impact on BAME communities specifically) may also play a part, but there's still a large gap in outcomes.
 

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
394
Location
London
Hope you had a good time, yorkie. Sweden is a wonderful country, I’ve been a few times over the last few years. Like anywhere on earth there are bits where lots of people live, bits where not many people live (and these parts are particularly beautiful in the north), and people love a drink with their pals (even if it is considerably more expensive than even London!). They aren’t martians.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,570
The quotes provided by 35B are nothing new, have been debunked before, and do not match my experience, having just got back from a trip to Sweden.

There really is no material difference between social distancing in Sweden than the UK; the only difference is people don't wear masks there (with a tiny number of exceptions)

The nonsense about population density ignores the facts that the main cities are actually similar to British cities in many respects, including density. I know this because I did extensive walking in suburbs to see for myself, along with other forum members

The idea that everyone there is 'staying at home' is either just plain wrong or outdated.

The majority of people in Sweden seem to be acting no different than the majority of people in Britain; if anything things were more 'normal' there than they are here, including significantly more usage of public transport (I'm sure their numbers will be down, but the difference compared to the UK was extremely stark).

I'm not going to let misinformation go unchallenged; part of the reason for my trip was to see for myself, and I am glad I'm in a position to dubunk the false claims with personal experience
I've glad your experience matches my memory of Sweden several years ago. It's interesting that public transport is more busy but without masks. The next few weeks will be interesting. Will they be clobbered by a surge of infections and deaths or will deaths remain relatively low?

Did you go in any pubs? What were they like?
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,463
Location
Up the creek
Well, I will chuck in my half-kronor’s worth, based on having lived in both Sweden and Denmark, albeit twenty-five to thirty years ago.

Firstly, both Danes and Swedes, particularly the latter, are likely to obey recommendations of how to behave if the reasons are explained to them. Of course there are exceptions, particularly in the cities, but they only make up a small minority, although sometimes a very obvious one as their poor behaviour stands out.

There are a number of differences to Britain: general health is better, housing is better (not necessarily more spacious, but less insanitary), and better interconnection between different organisations, for a start.

They seem to have got their Testing and Tracing regime working effectively, something which is probably our government’s biggest failure (of many). They also seem to have kept a broadly coherent policy, albeit with necessary changes, and kept the population informed. Something that is far from this country’s incoherent instructions and U-turns.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,908
Location
Yorkshire
Restaurants/bars similar to UK but without one way systems and no one ever asked us for contact tracing information and generally more relaxed.

Public transport well used and very similar to what you see in (say) London in that people naturally distance where possible but equally it does get busy and people just accept that.

It was all very civilised but really not that different to being in London, except with very few obsese people observed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top