Swedish herd immunity and NCR herd in-mutiny

Sweden’s constitution prohibits ministerial rule and mandates government agencies like the Public Health Agency to initiate all actions pertaining to their specific area of responsibility. On public health, politicians cannot impose protocols for implementation. This gives Sweden’s ministers very little power. To battle the COVID-19 pandemic, the Swedish government simply appealed to its citizens to practice social distancing and other protocols.

Avoiding harsh controls, fines, and policing, it only prohibited gatherings of more than 50 people, bar service, and physical attendance in schools and universities. Without using location-tracing technologies or apps, Sweden has distinguished itself by upholding privacy and personal autonomy.

This approach seems to work because there is a high level of trust among individuals, as well as between individuals and government institutions. Swedes are also generally healthier compared to their counterparts in Scandinavia and Europe. Moreover, in Sweden, issues of inequality are marginal.

Last month, The Guardian’s European correspondent Jon Henley reported that even with no mandatory lockdown, public transport usage declined by 50 percent with 50 percent working from home. Some 70 percent of Stockholm’s streets are less crowded. This is despite shopping, eating out, and getting haircuts not being prohibited!

Clearly, Sweden’s public health leaders credibly impressed upon their citizens that they should stay home to avoid loss of life.

Internally, the approach is not above criticism.

In Conversation, Erik Wengström of Lund University revealed that in a survey of 1,600 Swedes, 31 percent rated the public health policy as “not forceful enough”; 18 percent stayed neutral; with the last 51 percent considering it as adequate.

Sweden’s broad strategy is to attain herd immunity. This risks about 60 percent of its population to the virus. In Foreign Affairs (foreignaffairs.com), Tom Britton, a mathematician from Stockholm University calculated that it would take about 40 percent immunity in the capital to stop the virus from further spreading. This is expected in mid-June, 2020.

Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell believes the approach might produce more infections and mortalities in the short haul, but can spare the country from “the risk of a huge infection increase that many other countries might face once their strict lockdowns are lifted.”

The current Swedish COVID-19 death rate is 3,698. This is over ten times higher than Finland’s 300. Sweden has 10 million people. Norway has experienced 233 deaths for its population of 5 million. Denmark, with a population of 5.5 million, has had 548 deaths.

As a response, 22 Swedish doctors, virologists, and researchers called for a stricter public health policy, advocating that, “the approach must be changed radically and quickly.” Echoing the sentiment, Wengström revealed that of 1,600 Swedes surveyed, many observed that the strategy “puts the economy ahead of the health of citizens.”

This perceived prioritization of the economy notwithstanding, The Guardian’s Henley observed that the chosen strategy will not preserve Sweden’s economy “any more than those countries imposing stricter lockdowns.” This year, Swedish GDP is expected to shrink by 10 percent while unemployment is looking at 13.5 percent.

Forbes contributor Heather Farmbrough, confirms that “life in Sweden is absolutely not going on as usual.” Because public advisories are taken seriously, the Swedish experience is no different from what could be seen in countries on lockdown. The Philippines is no Sweden. After two months of staying home and virtual inactivity, we, the natives, are getting restless. A herd in-mutiny threatens.

Under the strict ECQ, it was clear to almost everyone that breaches in protocol might result in infection, a lonely death, and a quick cremation. During ECQ, there was greater appreciation of the risk to frontliners, and of excessive challenge to our health care system. The ECQ’s unequivocal message was to avoid loss of life by not triggering mass infections at home and in the community.

On May 15, a day before the National

Capital Region migrated from ECQ to modified ECQ (MECQ), social media posts showed people trooping to the malls and wet markets, clogging EDSA and other major thoroughfares. This has prompted the Joint Task Force COVID Shield to threaten to shut down malls “that fail to strictly enforce physical distancing…” No less than Police Lt. Gen. Guillermo Lorenzo Eleazar observed the breach of guidelines agreed upon by government and mall managers. Police presence appears necessary to enforce protocols.

The present difficulty may be explained by behavioral economics’ theory of loss aversion. It is easier for people to avoid losses than to achieve gains.

Under this theory, one begins with a reference point. Often, this reference point is the status quo.

In golf, an example of a reference point is “par for the course.” This was illustrated by economists Devin Pope and Maurice Schweitzer of the University of Pennsylvania cited by Nobel laureate in economics, Daniel Kahneman, in his best-selling book “Thinking, Fast and Slow.”

When putting, golfers must decide to either avoid bogeys (one stroke more) or achieve birdies (one stroke less). After testing 2.5 million putts (including those by Tiger Woods), the economists discovered that golfers avoided bogeys, or losses, better than when they attempted to achieve birdies, or gains.

The economists concluded that, “If in his best years, Tiger Woods had managed to putt as well for birdies as he did for par, his average tournament score would have improved by one stroke and his earnings by almost $1 million per season.”

During the ECQ, the reference point was non-infection, to be free from the virus and everything fatal that it implies.

When the ECQ was modified after almost two months of inactivity, it is possible that many Filipinos now believe their lives are no longer as endangered. What they are now trying to claim back is what they lost during the lockdown. This is now a game of gain, rather than a game of loss. For many of those racing to the malls, they have nothing to lose except their bondage to their homes, the demands of working from home, Zoom and Webinar.

Preservation of mental well-being and recovering from cabin-fever are embraced as essential reasons to go out. There is a mutiny, an open rebellion, to inactivity, to months of isolation aggravated by a dire lack of information on the results of wider testing.

The MECQ is invariably falling short of a safe and healthy prelude to normalizing economic and business activities. If anything, it forebodes horrendous public health consequences.

In one of my chat groups, a fraternity brod shared an ominous picture of people flagrantly violating physical distancing with the caption: “Konting hinahon lang po. Wag po tayong magtulakan. Lahat po mabibigyan ng COVID.”

Whether grappling with herd immunity or herd in-mutiny, there are words to the wise. In Sweden, the expression is, “Ända in ikaklet,” which encourages one to fight until the last drop. The gloomy but accurate Filipino counterpart is, “matira matibay.”