In a pandemic, there is no substitute for immunity, because immunity provides the best protection against reinfection. That’s why Sweden set its sights on immunity from the very beginning. They crafted a policy that was designed to protect the old and vulnerable, prevent the public health system from being overwhelmed, and, most important, allow younger, low-risk people to interact freely so they’d contract the virus and develop the antibodies they’d need to fight future infections. That was the plan and it worked like a charm. Now Sweden is just weeks away from achieving herd immunity (which means that future outbreaks will not be nearly as severe) while the lockdown nations– that are just now easing restrictions– face an excruciating uphill slog that may or may not succeed. Bottom line: Sweden analyzed the problem, figured out what to do, and did it. That’s why they are closing in on the finish line while most of the lockdown states are still stuck at Square 1.

疫情期間,免疫是不可替代的,因為免疫是再次感染的最佳保護。這就是瑞典從一開始就盯上免疫的原因。他們制定了一項政策,旨在保護老年人和弱勢群體,防止公共衛生系統不堪重負,最重要的是,允許年輕的低風險人群自由互動,這樣他們就能感染病毒,并產生對抗感染所需的抗體。這就是瑞典的計劃,而且非常奏效?,F在當采取封鎖政策的國家正在考慮放松限制,采取封鎖政策的國家正處在前途未卜的上坡路,而瑞典離離實現群體免疫只有幾周的時間了(這意味著未來的疫情不會那么嚴重)。結論:瑞典分析問題,找到了解決辦法,并采取了行動。這就是為什么他們正在接近終點線,而大多數封鎖狀態仍然停留在第一方隊。





Giesecke’s analysis veers from the conventional view of the virus which explains why the Swedish response has been so different. For example, he says: “I think there is relatively little chance of stopping this whatever measures we take.”

吉塞克的分析與傳統的病毒觀點相悖,這也解釋了為什么瑞典的反應如此不同。例如,他說:"我認為無論采取什么措施,基本都不太可能阻止這種病毒。"

This gets to the root of the Swedish approach. Sweden is not trying to suppress the infection which they see as a force of nature (like a tsunami) that cannot be contained but only mitigated. From the beginning, the Swedish approach has been to “control the spread of the virus”, not to suppress it through containment strategies. There’s a fundamental difference here, and that difference is expressed in the policy.

這就是瑞典抗疫政策的根源。瑞典沒有打算抑制感染,他們認為這是自然界的力量(像海嘯一樣),無法控制,只能緩解。從一開始,瑞典的做法就是 "控制病毒傳播",而不是通過遏制來抑制病毒的傳播。這有根本的區別,區別體現在政策上。

Second, “We have data now from Sweden that between 98 and 99% of the cases have had a very mild infection or didn’t even realize they were infected.” In other words, this is highly-contagious infection that poses little or no threat to most people. That suggests the economy can be kept open without endangering the lives of low-risk groups. The added benefit of allowing certain businesses to remain open, is that it creates a controlled environment in which the infection can spread rapidly through the healthy population who, in turn, develop the antibodies they need for future outbreaks. This all fits within Sweden’s plan for managing, rather than avoiding, the virus.

第二,"瑞典現有數據顯示,98%到99%的確診病例都是非常輕微的感染,或者說根本沒有意識到自己被感染。" 換句話說,這是種傳染性很強的傳染病,對大多數人幾乎不構成威脅。這表明,可以在不危及低風險群體生命的情況下,保持經濟開放。允許某些企業保持開放的額外好處是,創造了可控的環境,在這個環境中,疫情感染可以通過健康人群迅速傳播,而健康人群反過來又會發展出他們所需要的抗體,以防將來會爆發。這一切都符合瑞典管理而不是避免病毒的計劃。

Finally, “What we looking at is a thin layer at the top of people who do develop the disease and an even thinner layer of people who go into intensive care and an even thinner layer of people who die.” The vast majority of people who die from Covid are over 65 with multiple underlying conditions. It’s a terrible tragedy that they should die, but destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions of working people in a futile attempt to stop an unstoppable force like Covid, is foolish and unforgivable. The appropriate response is to protect the old and infirm as much as possible, carefully monitor the rise in cases to prevent the public health system from cratering, and keep the economy operating at a lower level. And that’s exactly what Sweden has done.

最后,"我們看到的(官方確診和死亡病例)真正有明顯癥狀的病例只不過是感染病例冰山的一角,而進入重癥監護室的人和死亡的人只不過是冰山一角的一角。" 絕大多數死于新型冠狀病毒的人都是65歲以上,患有多種疾病。他們的死亡是可怕的悲劇,但為了阻止像新型冠狀病毒這樣不可阻擋的力量而徒勞地破壞數百萬勞動人民的生命和生計,是愚蠢的,也是不可原諒的。適當的應對措施是盡可能保護老弱病殘,謹慎地監控病例的上升,防止公共衛生系統崩潰,讓經濟運行在較低的水平上,這才是合適的。而這正是瑞典所做的事情。