4.5 Review

How Sweden approached the COVID-19 pandemic: Summary and commentary on the National Commission Inquiry

期刊

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
卷 112, 期 1, 页码 19-33

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apa.16535

关键词

COVID-19; Government inquiry; Pandemic; Schools; Strategy; Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sweden initially chose a different approach to disease prevention and control during the pandemic. The overall excess mortality rate in Sweden was lower than in many other European countries, despite a relatively high number of deaths. The Swedish COVID-19 Commission concluded that earlier and more extensive measures should have been taken, especially during the first wave.
Aim Sweden initially chose a different disease prevention and control path during the pandemic than many other European countries. In June 2020, the Swedish Government established a National Commission to examine the management of COVID-19 in Sweden. This paper summarises, and discusses, its findings. Methods Three reports published by the Commission were analysed. The first focused on the care of older people during the pandemic. The second examined disease and infection transmission and control and health care and public health. The third updated the first two reports and also covered economic aspects, crisis management and public communication. Results By 25 February 2022, when the final report was published, 15 800 individuals, 1.5 per 1000 Swedish inhabitants, had died after COVID-19. The death rates were high in spring 2020, but overall excess mortality in 2020-2021 was +0.79%, which was lower than in many other European countries. The Commission suggested that the voluntary measures that were adopted were appropriate and maintained Swedes' personal freedom during the pandemic. However, more extensive and earlier measures should have been taken, especially during the first wave. Conclusion The Swedish COVID-19 Commission felt that earlier and more extensive pandemic action should have been taken, particularly during the first wave.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据