A statement by Sweden’s state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who advised his government on measures to take other than lockdowns, has been found on the UK Covid’s Inquiry’s website in a collection of 700 documents.
The doctor, who resigned from his post in 2022, said that excess deaths throughout the epidemic were “considerably higher” in the UK than in Sweden—the only country in Europe and one of only a handful in the world not to implement any form of lockdown during the COVID-19 era.
“Death rates are higher in Sweden than our Nordic neighbours but lower than the UK. Exact data can be taken from a number of sources, as I am sure you are aware. Excess mortality differs slightly depending on the method but Sweden is at the same level as the Nordic countries and sometimes lower. UK has a considerably higher excess mortality.”
Mr. Tegnell attended an online meeting with then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, then Chancellor Rishi Sunak and former special adviser Dominic Cummings in Sept. 2020, prior to the announcement of the second UK lockdown. Four UK scientists were also present, with two making the case in favour of lockdowns and two arguing against the policy.
He said he did not advise Mr. Johnson but rather outlined his experience that the non-lockdown approach was working because “the spread in Sweden was comparatively low.”
He said the lockdown did not happen in his country partly because its constitutional law does not allow for declaring a state of emergency because of the outbreak of a disease.
“Fundamental civil rights and freedoms can only be suspended in the case of war. Public health emergencies are, therefore, regulated by ordinary law, which allocates responsibilities. It is legally impossible to enforce a general quarantine or ‘lockdown’ measures,” he wrote.
In a series of often pithy answers to the 91 questions put to him, Mr. Tegnell denied that Sweden had adopted a “herd immunity” policy, saying that such a strategy “does not really exist” in epidemiology, but agreed the aim had been “containment” of the virus.
He said Swedish law places the onus on personal responsibility with infectious diseases, so anyone with symptoms was advised to self-isolate, but there were very few restrictions placed on Swedes compared to most countries.
There were no mask mandates, except a brief period when they were requested on public transport, and no restrictions on social mixing. Pubs, restaurants and shops remained open, meaning society functioned much as usual—although people were advised to work from home where possible.
Older children and university students were taught through distance learning for a time, but primary school children were never expected to learn from home because Mr. Tegnell said that Swedish law requires all policies to be “in the child’s best interest.”
There was a test and trace policy and “limited” border control, but none of the Swedish policies were used to criminalise its citizens, who were merely “advised” to reduce close personal contact. Swedes were surveilled through mobile phone date, he said, and adherence to restrictions and advice was found to be “relatively high.”
Mr. Tegnell said he did not think Sweden had got everything right, however, “During the first wave, Sweden had a very high incidence and mortality, which, of course, shows that the response was not totally successful.”
He said he regretted that “we did not manage to protect our elderly” and that some less advantaged groups had been more affected than others.
The Swedish approach has been a source of contention between pro and anti-lockdown scientists ever since COVID-19 restrictions began, with the Scandinavian country serving as a “control group,” being surrounded by countries who implemented hard lockdowns.
Two Oxford academics, Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr. Tom Jefferson, recently wrote to the inquiry chair, Baroness Hallett, accusing her of bias toward witnesses who backed lockdown.
Speaking to The Epoch Times, Prof. Heneghan said the evidence of Mr. Tegnell called for a change in the UK law so that politicians would not be allowed to lock down the country “in a panic” again.
“A key issue in Sweden is that it is enshrined in the law that you can’t just lock people down because of a public health emergency. They can only do it in the event of war, and that is really key here.“If our public health act is not fit for purpose, then it should be reformed so that its powers can never be invoked again. Public health decisions became political during the pandemic, and you had people in charge who just didn’t know what they were doing and locked down in a panic.”
Prof. Heneghan said that Mr. Tegnell’s evidence showed clearly that Sweden did not “do nothing,” as was reported in some of the media.
“You don’t do nothing in a health crisis, and Sweden did have restrictions, but they were proportionate and effective, unlike in most other countries.
“People like Sunetra Gupta and myself were painted in the media as the ‘let it rip’ brigade, but we never said to do nothing. We said you don’t imprison people in their own homes when you don’t understand what’s coming, and whether this will even be effective at all. You have to look at the evidence first. They didn’t even wait and see how bad it would be before they announced the lockdown.”
Prof. Heneghan said it was important to trust people to make the right decisions for themselves: “People will modify their own behaviour anyway and manage their own risks, as we all do, all the time. We saw that with Sweden—you didn’t need to do the heavy-handed stuff because people took sensible precautions, according to their own judgement.”
Following a fractious exchange between the lead counsel and Michael Gove at the inquiry last month, Baroness Hallett told Mr. Gove she was not biased in favour of lockdowns.
“Can I assure you and others that I don’t have any settled views as yet, I will not reach any conclusion until I have considered all the evidence, oral evidence, written evidence and not just the small section of the evidence like WhatsApp messages that some sections of the media have been focusing on.”
A spokesman for the inquiry said it rejects any suggestion that it has a predetermined outcome.
