Sweden is, unlike its neighboring Scandinavian countries, not directing social distancing or other stringent mandates. I read the article with a sort of, “Hmm.”
But then I read this with a sort of, “Whoa!” (I’ve bolded the “Whoa” part):
Sweden’s approach appeals to the public’s self-restraint and sense of responsibility, Mr. Tegnell said. “That’s the way we work in Sweden. Our whole system for communicable disease control is based on voluntary action. The immunization system is completely voluntary and there is 98 percent coverage,” he explained.
“You give them the option to do what is best in their lives,” he added. “That works very well, according to our experience.”
In explaining Sweden’s current strategy, experts point to other underlying factors: The country has high levels of trust, according to the historian Lars Tragardh, and a strict law in the Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in the affairs of the administrative authorities, such as the public health agency.
While we’re assembling adjustments to our Constitution in the face of (1) a rampaging president and (2) the shock of finding out how much a (rampaging) president can do because there are no Constitutional barriers to stop him, can we consider Sweden’s advanced idea to separate and protect experts from fools?