X Close

Sweden saved children from lockdown It was wise enough to resist school closures

Sweden spared children immeasurable trauma. (Jessica GOW/TT News/AFP/ Getty Images)

Sweden spared children immeasurable trauma. (Jessica GOW/TT News/AFP/ Getty Images)


June 17, 2022   6 mins

It’s been more than two years since the world went into lockdown and schools, like most institutions, closed their doors. But the most devastating consequences of this policy are only just coming to light. Thousands of disadvantaged children have fallen behind.

It didn’t have to be this way. One country did it differently.

Late in the evening of 12 March 2020, journalists waited in a government building in Stockholm for the Swedish minister for education, Anna Ekström, to deliver a statement. Most of them expected the Swedish government to announce school closures. The night before in Copenhagen, the Danish prime minister, Mette Fredriksen, had declared that all preschools, schools, and universities in Denmark would close. Just a few hours earlier, Norway had followed suit. In Sweden, Ekström had just had a meeting with representatives of school principals and government agencies.

When she finally emerged and delivered her verdict, she explained that the government had chosen to keep the schools open. “It’s a clear recommendation from the Public Health Agency, and they are very keen to see it followed,” she said.

What no one at the time knew was that, behind the scenes, a retired epidemiologist had won his first battle. Seventy-year-old Johan Giesecke had been Sweden’s state epidemiologist between 1995 and 2005, and had a good relationship with Anders Tegnell, the man who now held the title. Decades earlier, Giesecke had hired Tegnell because he appreciated what appeared to be Tegnell’s complete indifference to what other people thought of him. Now, Giesecke referred to Tegnell as “his son”.

Both men, at the start of the pandemic, advocated for keeping schools open.

They did this for a number of reasons. Firstly, no one knew if school closures worked. On the one hand, there was some historic support for the policy: experiences from school holidays during influenza outbreaks in France, and the varying responses to the 1918 pandemic in the US, suggested that the number of cases could “maybe” be reduced by 15% by closures, in an optimistic scenario. But it also suggested that those gains would likely be lost if the children weren’t completely isolated when staying home from school.

And the intervention came at a high cost. The bill for closing British schools for 12 weeks was estimated at 1% of the country’s GDP in a Lancet article (among the authors were both Anders Tegnell and Neil Ferguson). In the US, an equivalent intervention cost 6% of the GDP according to the same article.

It was a hard decision to make — unless you were Johan Giesecke. He was completely convinced that closing schools was the wrong route to take. Above all, he thought, it would be unfair on the children. Everyone in the public health business knew that school absences had an adverse effect on children’s living conditions (see here, here, here and here) well into later life.

That night, even though he and Tegnell had managed to convince the Swedish government to keep schools open, Giesecke knew defending the decision would be hard. The politicians of the world were panicking. Early the next morning, Giesecke wrote in an email to Tegnell: “An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur.” Just to be safe, he added a translation: “Don’t you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?”

The Swedes monitored the course of events unfurling on the rest of the continent. The countries closing their schools and preschools were growing more and more numerous. Tegnell couldn’t understand what they were doing.

His confidantes at the agency agreed with his assessment: the rest of the world was rushing headlong into a dangerous experiment with unforeseen consequences. The head of analysis at the agency explained that Spanish school closures had pushed the virus from the cities to the coasts, as wealthy families fled to their holiday homes. And school closures would force many key workers, including doctors and nurses, to stay home from their jobs.

“The world has gone mad,” Tegnell wrote to two colleagues.

There was one notable exception to the madness. In the UK, things still seemed normal. On 16 March, Tegnell and Giesecke emailed each other about a video of Boris Johnson and Chris Whitty explaining the British pandemic strategy, which so far included keeping schools open. The email thread’s subject line was: “Go, England”.

But what neither Tegnell nor the others knew as they watched the British decision-makers explaining their strategy was that soon the UK would change tack, after Imperial College released a report that made dire predictions. Without extensive action to slow the spread of coronavirus, as many as 510,000 people in the UK, and 2.2 million people in the United States, could die in the space of a couple of months. A rough translation based on Swedish population figures meant that almost 100,000 Swedes would perish.

But Giesecke was sceptical. He pointed to the example of “mad cow disease”: in 2001, the British had slaughtered millions of livestock to prevent it from spreading. “They thought 50,000 people would die. So how many did?” Giesecke liked to ask.

He always answered his own question: “157”.

He had more examples. Four years later, Imperial College warned that 150 million people around the world might die of bird flu. It ended up being 455. Four years after that, it was swine flu: the prognosis forecast 65,000 British deaths. The results? 474. Why would anyone trust the British scientists now? The new report, Giesecke wrote, was “way off the mark”.

Sweden, then, would defy the rest of the world. Here, people generally didn’t have to wear face masks, leisure activities were largely allowed to continue unhindered — and young children continued going to school, football practice and music lessons. Some birthday parties were cancelled, of course, but compared to the rest of the world, young Swedish kids’ lives changed very little. They never had to wear face masks in school, nor undergo systematic testing procedures.

Foreign media were quick to call the strategy “a disaster” (Time), “the world’s cautionary tale” (New York Times) and “deadly folly” (Guardian). In Germany, Focus described the policy as “sloppiness”; Italy’s La Repubblica concluded that the “Nordic model country” had made a dangerous mistake.

Many theories emerged as to why Sweden took such a different path. Some of them focus on Sweden’s constitution, which differs from other European countries’, for instance in the extreme autonomy of government agencies, and the constitutional right to move around the country. Others point to the fact that Swedish authorities were unnecessarily hawkish during the HIV epidemic, and weren’t willing to repeat the same mistake.

But the main reason for Sweden’s special path is uncomplicated: the Swedes made a different interpretation of the scientific data early on in the pandemic. They simply believed the scenarios presented by the rest of the world, and especially the one from Imperial College, to be vastly exaggerated. And they thought that lockdowns and school closures were terrible for public health in general.

Based on what we know today, two years on from the start of the pandemic, it’s pretty clear that they got it right. In July 2020, when deaths in Sweden — according to calibrations from researchers at the universities at Lund and Uppsala, based on the Imperial College report, were supposed to be between 85,000 and 96,000 — the Swedish death toll stood at less than 6,000. Throughout that spring, people had been free to move, go skiing, go to the gym; preschools and schools for kids under 16 had been open.

Children in other countries are still suffering the after-effects of lockdown. In the US, maths and reading skills for children between the ages of three and eight were lower than normal last autumn — and, according to the Center for School and Student Progress, native American, Black, and Hispanic students, as well as students in high-poverty schools, were disproportionately impacted.

“American children are starting 2022 in crisis,” concluded David Leonhardt of the New York Times when going through the available research.

The story is the same in all locked down and masked-up countries. In Germany, studies show an increase in childhood obesity, a deterioration of language skills and concerning fine motor deficiencies; in Norway, newspapers report a “wave of sick young people”. And in Britain, the Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty has admitted that lockdowns exacerbated childhood obesity. The share of children starting school with a weight problem has risen by a fifth since the pandemic.

Early indications suggest that Swedish kids, on the other hand, have been spared. According to a new study in the International Journal of Educational Research, the proportion of students with weak reading skills did not increase during the pandemic, and students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds did not disproportionately suffer. Of course, every individual study needs to be taken with a grain of salt: had the world’s politicians and policymakers heeded this principle in March 2020, it would have spared the world a lot of grief.

What price did Sweden pay for the health of its children? Strangely, in the nation that served as a control group during the pandemic, deaths not only ended up much lower than predicted, but lower than in most other comparable countries. According to the WHO’s latest figures, Sweden had an average excess death rate during 2020 and 2021 of 56 per 100,000 — lower than much of Europe and below the global average. The corresponding figure is 109 in the UK, 111 in Spain, 116 in Germany and 133 in Italy.

Over the last few weeks, social media has erupted over the WHO’s plans for a “pandemic treaty”. Many believe that it paves the way for the WHO to overrule national laws and impose lockdowns and other restrictions without citizens’ consent. While the specific concerns are largely unfounded, the fear is not difficult to understand. Had Sweden followed global received wisdom during the last pandemic, it might have come out the other side with a generation of scarred children. While most societies avoided questioning the efficacy of school closures, and still can’t have a reasoned debate about the restrictions, we quietly went our own way. Perhaps the Nordic approach remains a model, after all.


Johan Anderberg is a journalist and author of The Herd, a bestselling history of the Swedish experience during Covid-19.

johananderberg

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

26 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago

Amen to that!

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

“Why would anyone trust the British scientists now?”
A question I keep asking myself. Our scientific community is an absolute disgrace. If you get every single major decision wrong, you should be rightly ignored.

Graeme Ackland
Graeme Ackland
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Ferguson’s model showed that doing nothing would give 500,000 death – but we didn’t do nothing. Doing lockdowns with no vaccine they predicted 200,000, and even better with vaccines : current estimates are 180,000. Given how little we knew in March 2020, that’s astonishingly accurate.
Curiously, Ferguson’s model also showed closing schools was a bad idea in the long run, exactly as this article suggests.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/10/07/covid-19-modelling-the-pandemic/
The decision to close schools was about “Saving the NHS”. Scientists don’t make decisions, politicians do.

David Redfern
David Redfern
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme Ackland

Ferguson’s 500,000 figure was pure fantasy as demonstrated by Sweden.

according to calibrations from researchers at the universities at Lund and Uppsala, based on the Imperial College report, were supposed to be between 85,000 and 96,000 — the Swedish death toll stood at less than 6,000.

That’s not just wrong, that’s catastrophically and indefensibly wrong. From those numbers alone it is futile and puerile to present that “we didn’t do nothing” when, in fact, we should have done nothing.
Fergusons models, which have a solid history of being catastrophically wrong (as illustrated), were torn apart by numerous people including Google engineers who were appalled that he was using an obsolete language with millions of lines of unverified code, something abandoned decades ago.
Even in light of all this, our government utterly ignored that the man was, and remains, utterly incompetent and should be, at the very least, stripped of his academic qualifications thereby rendering him unemployable by any academic entity.
Instead of listening to far better qualified individuals than Ferguson, our government and the media shut them down.
Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost thanks to our governments reckless behaviour, and officials including Ferguson need to answer for mass homicide or nothing will stop them from doing it again.

Adam Bacon
Adam Bacon
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme Ackland

With great effort, conflating deaths WITH Covid and OF Covid, the statisticians managed to create a figure far greater than any real excess deaths.

And thank goodness that Sweden stuck it out, to be the control group in the catastrophic global experiment.

Lockdowns seem to me to be analogous with bed rest, for decades intuitively regarded as an essential part of recovery from heart attacks and surgery. Evidence based medicine blew that illusion out of the water, demonstrating the vast array of complications it caused, just as it is now demonstrating the vast collateral damage of lockdowns, for, at best, negligible benefit.

Dave Tagge
Dave Tagge
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme Ackland

Graeme, you are missing one of the key claims coming from the Ferguson model, as noted in the article: not just the headline number, but that many “could die in the space of a couple months”. The implications of the claim were likely to be more deaths even than the headline numbers, because it implied metrics such as COVID patients alone requiring more ICU beds than available in the U.S. (and even worse in the UK, which has fewer ICU beds per capita). That was based on an assumption that SARS-CoV-2 infections would rise inexorably until hitting a calculated herd immunity threshold (>50% of a country’s population).
Instead, what happened even in areas that didn’t mandate stringent lockdowns in response to rising COVID numbers – such as Sweden and multiple U.S. states – was that initial COVID waves lasted roughly 6-8 weeks and infected perhaps 15% to 20% of the population before subsiding. One can debate the precise reasons for this, but it appears to result from some combination of seasonality, social structure (not everyone is connected to everyone else, so some chains of a respiratory virus can run through a connected group and then “burn out” by failing to jump to others), and voluntary measures (such as some businesses choosing to have employees work from home even in the absence of mandates to do so).
That last point – voluntary measures taken by private businesses and citizens weighing their own view of costs and benefits – is categorically different from mandated lockdown because it respects basic principles of liberty in a free society. It’s also likely to have a far better ratio of benefits to costs than blanket mandates because it decentralizes decision-making to private actors aware of their own circumstances when deciding whether or not to implement these measures.
Should Ferguson (and other epidemiologists) have been aware of this possible in the Imperial model? I would argue that they should at least have noted it as a qualifier, given the history of other respiratory virus epidemics (specifically pandemic influenza). These similarly followed seasonal/cyclical patterns where areas experienced multiple waves, with the first waves subsiding well before total infections hit a theoretical herd immunity threshold. And recall, of course, that the actual policy actions taken in response to the model’s prediction were the largest peacetime restrictions ever imposed on the populations of Western Europe, the United States, etc.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

It is certainly right to celebrate the good sense of Anders Tegnell and his mentor but I do wonder if there were other factors enabling him to hold the line on a sensible plan. Clearly Tegnell must have had political backing. Did he face the sort of onslaught from a hysterical MSM and opposition politicians that Boris did to the UK’s initially more reasonable stance on lockdown?
The impression I had at the time was of the appalling hysteria of the MSM in the UK coupled with the political grandstanding of the opposition and particularly Sturgeon which whipped up fear in the population making it difficult for Boris and the scientific advisors to hold to the Swedish line given the extreme reactions in much of Europe that had experienced rising infection rates earlier than the UK.

Bruno Lucy
Bruno Lucy
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

The main thing that needs to be understood is the government agencies independence toward the government. This is not something to be messed about in Sweden and obviously very very hard to understand for none swedes

like me
..until the Norwegians kicked me out and I managed to catch the last train out of Oslo.
I could not believe Sweden would not lock down

and they didn’t. Sweden became my home for the following 3 months.
I discovered both UnHerd and Johann Gieseke on his first interview on April 2020. His matter of fact frumpy demeanour immediately appealed to me in comparison to the grandiloquence of Macron who stated, no less, that France was at war, walking on all basic civil liberties like never seen before since the war.
A friend of mine was at the time in the Gendarmerie reserve in Brittany and, since she is a woman, was called in in all the domestic, child abuse cases and these were just staggering.
Reading the foreign press, especially German, British and French, about Sweden and being in the country was simply amazing. Never in my life did I read so many lies written by journalists who were stationed in Sweden.
I also met Tegnell’s haters and he actually had to have a protection detail but for many, the majority, he saved the day and most of all their children sanity.
Has the world learned something from Sweden ? Germany certainly not with a health minister scaremongering the country

mask mandate on trains with a scorching heat.
Karl Lauterbach certainly needs a holiday

in Sweden

Last edited 1 year ago by Bruno Lucy
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruno Lucy

Thank you for that explanation of the independence government agencies enjoy from government. Clearly in the hands of sensible men this is a great advantage. Independence has its dangers as we see here in the UK where numerous government agencies are able to pursue damaging woke policies that are not driven by government policy and are often contrary to them.

I am also interested to hear that Tegnell had to have protection. This certainly mirrors some of the MSM hysteria here. In practice large sections of the population simply disregarded the strict edicts as we well know from partygate and beergate – and it certainly was not just politicians and civil servants but many of the rest of us. Of course those whose lives were disrupted by the restrictions- even those that were sensible – now seek their revenge on the “hypocrites”.

Bruno Lucy
Bruno Lucy
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Tegnell needed protection because in times of crisis some people need someone to hate
.and as Laura says, he was the poster boy of the agency.
There was an attempt by some 200 medical professionals to undermine his course of action with an article in the press. These 200 were swiftly multiplied by 10 in the foreign press and some forgetting Sweden has only 10 million people, tried the 20 000 medical professionals stunt. Pathetic. This group quickly crawled back to under the stone they had come from having absolutely no support from the population who thought enjoying a beer on a terrace was a lot more appealing than lockdown.
Plus his non flamboyant style annoyed all those who need pomp and drama. The man is no bull
.just facts. Pretty rare these days.
All in all, Sweden will have paved the way only
.and only if people refuse the diabolical tricks that were pulled on them next time. It’s up to them and not to the politicians and their mad scientists who are already ready for the next one

with the same tools.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruno Lucy

Everything you say is perfectly correct.
In addition, yes, Johan Erik Carlson who was head of The Swedish Health Authority – FolkhĂ€lsomyndigheten and also a infectious diseases specialist did provide political backing. Tegnell was the face of the Swedish strategy, and the person who had to face down the press every day, and then every week as the crisis unfolded. The Swedish press, even the tabloid press, is not normally given to the excesses of hysterical journalism normal in many other countries, because being emotionally-overwrought is not a good look here. And before too long, expecting blood in the water, journalists from those more attack-oriented countries showed up, and Tegnell had to face them too.
But if Carlson had decided to give him less than his full support, things would have been very different, witness that when Karin Tegmark Wisell replaced Carlson on his retirement, Nov 1, 2021 FHM stance moved a bit closer to what other nations were doing … though it is not clear how much of that is Tegmark Wisell and how much of that was the new Prime Minister.
Because that is the other big factor. The Social Democrats are not a political party like the others around here. The Social Democratic Party is the political arm of the organisation of Trade Unions. As a result it has had a much harder time abandoning the union membership in order to become the party of Liberal Bankers. When the corona crisis hit, the elected PM was Stefan Löfven, who was a welder, who became active in his local trade union, and largely on his skills as a negotiator rose through the ranks and into government until he ended up on top.
You aren’t going to get him to sign off on corona restrictions that hammer the working class unless the alternative was killing the working class.
However the Social Democrats have their own internal problems about keeping the party together, and keeping their alliances with the Greens and the Left (former communist) party, and it all blew up in the end of 2021 (not over corona, because the policy was already looking better and better by that point), and on the 30th of November he resigned, and for our sins we got Magdalena Andersson as PM. She’s an economist, and the former finance minister, and another WEF young leader — i.e. a liberal banker sort.
And as soon as she got to be leader the message got a lot more like ‘we are preparing for catastrophe’ while we all scratched our heads and said ‘ah, but the hospitals aren’t reporting being overworked, and we have lots of vacant ICUs, and ah, what catastrophe?’
So lots of us think that had we had the misfortune to have her as PM when the crisis started we too would have had lockdowns and masks and the works. She says no, and that she stands by the independence of the Agencies.
Let’s hope we don’t get to find out.

Last edited 1 year ago by Laura Creighton
Bruno Lucy
Bruno Lucy
1 year ago

Laura
.everyone thinks Swedes are just boring plodding northerners and do what they’re told. My opinion is however that try to touch basic liberties and you’ll be very very sorry. The parliamentary report that also criticised the way the crisis was managed starts with :
There were no reasons to limit civil liberties
..etc 
.etc.
If that is not staying cool under fire
..then what is. I think Swedes are much more aware of these value under this aloofness while the French, while promising a bloody revolution every time they’re not happy
..which is often

let themselves be locked having to sign themselves a permit to go shopping, permits that if not filled out properly was warranting you 135 Eur fine.
Try to pull that one out in Sweden !!
Like I said, I spent 3 months in the country while the rest of the world was going crazy and if they saved their children, they also saved my sanity. There is no way I would have gone being locked up 2 months in my apartment without sustaining some scars. So gratitude and affection are both generously given.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruno Lucy

Come back and visit some time soon!

Last edited 1 year ago by Laura Creighton
Bruno Lucy
Bruno Lucy
1 year ago

Every summer and winter Laura :))

David Giles
David Giles
1 year ago

A question I pose NOW to lockdown jawks is why exactly we closed sxhools in 2020. Usually the is a momentary look of alarm followed by, usually, a reference to kids being spreaders. That’s actually the better answer; the alternative is to spout self-evident nonsense about kids being in danger from Covid.

However, the horror, the disgust in response to my follow-up: “So we sacrificed the kids for our own benefit?” is a joy to behold. If the conversation isn’t forceably stopped, I am at least usually told what a disgusting suggestion I’ve made or what a thoroughly unpleasant person I am. They never, EVER tell me I’m wrong.

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
1 year ago
Reply to  David Giles

Right. When I say things like that I get blinking, startled, incomprehension, and something like “well, we had to do something because people were dying 
 what else could we have done?”. The answer: nothing. We should have done absolutely nothing. And more and more people well know it.

But just look at the cruelty and abuse inflicted on little Japanese primary schoolchildren by the reprehensible, cowardly, delusional “adults” who are supposed to look after them: no talking or *even looking at each other* at lunch for two years, and masks on even in PE classes in the heat of the summer. Just vile. I don’t understand anyone who isn’t utterly morally outraged by it. And yet that champion of the underdog the Guardian reports it totally straight with a sickening image of the child abuse in action, and quoting a crazy mother who wants her innocent little children to continue to suffer. It is enough to make one weep, and pray for the adults everywhere to grow a pair, get back in the room, and follow Sweden’s lead and start with the demolition of all of this nonsense, and fast.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/17/japanese-children-allowed-to-talk-again-over-lunch-as-covid-cases-fall

Robin Daly
Robin Daly
1 year ago

Not to mention that if Sweden hadn’t done this and gone it alone, we’d never have had a counter narrative to “the madness” and that dreadful Imperial man, whose name I can’t bring myself to type. Sweden’s role in providing another way, may have saved us all in ways we can’t yet imagine.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Daly

Before all of this happened I filed ‘global fascist conspiracy to destroy democratic norms’ in the same mental pigeonhole I put ‘anti-Semitic rants about the secret protocols of the Elders of Zion’, Aleister Crowley’s corpus, certain Marxist thinking, and the writing of some who read the The Illuminatus! Trilogy , thought it was serious, and ended up as true believers.
Now I am not so sure. Over covid, the political parties who have been promoting ‘diversity’ for decades became exposed as being interested in diversity-of-pigmentation only. Once they saw a sincere diversity in covid response they were quick to show up with the pitchforks and hot tar.
Could we have simply fallen into such an abyss of groupthink by accident? Or has somebody been pulling the strings?

Jim Stanton
Jim Stanton
1 year ago

Someone has been pulling the strings for quite some time.

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

Anders Tegnell is one of my heroes. I just read he quit his job in Sweden this March to take up a position with the WHO. I wonder what are the politics behind that job offer? I would have thought he’d be the fox in the henhouse.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

He didn’t get the job.
https://www.thelocal.se/20220325/did-swedens-state-epidemiologist-really-get-a-big-job-at-the-who/
https://www.thelocal.se/20220420/swedens-former-state-epidemiologist-turned-down-for-who-job/
The reason given is that Sweden was asked to provide several candidates for the job, but they only supplied one, and that was unacceptable. But there aren’t that many of us who believe this. The thing to recall is that the WHO is not a monolithic, utterly corrupt institution, rotten from top to bottom. In particular, Johan Giesecke is still there, and in the middle of the pandemic, the WHO had a fierce internal battle and in September 2020 he was named vice-chair of STAG-IH, the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infectious Hazards. This was an indication that the people in the WHO who are still interested in health still have power in the organisation. But that Tegnell’s appointment never materialised is an indication that ‘no unofficial sons of Giesecke are wanted here’ has pretty strong backing in the organisation, too.

Last edited 1 year ago by Laura Creighton
Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

If only debate in the UK had been allowed on the subject, the powers-that-be might have been more pragmatic in their decision-making. For example, the government ignored the Sunday Times letter which had 700 medically qualified signatories and the press found more sensation in keeping the tension up rather than trying to find truth by debate.
Unfortunately debate is also denied when it comes to climate change. Over-population (and everything associated with it) is a major contributory factor….also concreting over the land reflects heat and produces water run-off, to swell gutters, rivers and increase sea-levels but neither is considered relevant. Burning fossil fuels seems to be the only cause of climate warming and although we must look to producing as much green energy as possible, the idea that it will ever be sufficient for the ever-increasing demand for electricity to power mobile phone, computers and other tech devices as well as heating houses and running our transport network is, to my mind, wishful thinking. .

Archibald Leach
Archibald Leach
1 year ago

Surely Sweden is the most wonderful country in the world!
*It invented the Nobel Prize.
*It saved children from stupid lockdown
*It kept out of WW2
– But why on earth does it think joining NATO is a smart move?

Last edited 1 year ago by Archibald Leach
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

Perhaps because it’s just witnessed Russia carve off large sections of Ukrainian territory in a completely unprovoked invasion (after the same thing happened to Georgia) and they’re concerned that if they don’t align themselves with NATO then the same could happen to Sweden?

Josiah Pinkerton
Josiah Pinkerton
1 year ago

The Soviets bombed a Swedish city in ww2 unprovoked so I’d be wary too


Magnus Back
Magnus Back
1 year ago

The latin quote is from Axel Oxenstierna, 1583-1654. One of the most brilliant Swedes ever.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Axel-Greve-Oxenstierna-af-Sodermore