So far as I am aware, Sweden remains the only major Western country that has not imposed a strict lockdown on its citizens to deal with the Covid-19 outbreak. Other than a ban on gatherings of 50 or more people, and advice such as over-70s being urged to stay at home, Swedish schools, shops, restaurants and pubs all remain open. It almost seems to me that the Government there has decided to treat grown adults like they are ... well grown adults.
However, despite being a sovereign nation, with the right to set its own policy, it appears that this is not acceptable to the "international community", and the Swedish Government is coming under huge pressure to change course. The World Health Organization (WHO), for instance, recently called for the nation to impose more restrictions, saying that
it is "imperative" that Sweden:
"increase measures to control spread of the virus, prepare and increase capacity of the health system to cope, ensure physical distancing and communicate the why and how of all measures to the population."
Donald Trump also felt the need to give his two cents as well:
"Sweden did that, the herd, they call it the herd. Sweden's suffering very, very badly."
But is Sweden really suffering very, very badly in comparison to other countries that have imposed severe restrictions? Is it really imperative that they change course and fall in line with what most other countries have done? Or do these calls proceed from a different motive entirely: a fear that Sweden's comparatively measured approach of dealing with Covid-19
without introducing the most draconian civil restrictions ever seen and
without crashing its economy might actually work and in so doing show the response of other countries to have been wildly disproportionate?
Comment: Kentucky is Bible Belt country. Predictably, Bashear's order did not go over well with his constituency.