Why does being a public person imply that you can continue being a public person no matter what happens?
Maybe the whole idea of going into politics should be exactly the same as with many hyper-competitive finance firms. You fail only once, then you’re out.
The article looked fishy when I started reading it and I knew something was wrong when I came to the point where it claimed that both Norway and Sweden had the same level of immigration.
In 2016 Sweden had around 160 000 asylum seekers, and granted around 70 000.
Norway with half the population had 31k asylum seekers, through I don't know the grant rate. In 2017 Norway had reduced those numbers further down to around 3k asylum seekers, while Sweden had 150k.
Similar immigration levels? No. Not even close.
If those numbers are that wrong then I don't trust any other numbers in this article. The connection to covid is also dubious and I have yet to see any such arguments being done in the news. No one is claiming that immigration is the reason why vaccination took until this summer to be made available to the general population, nor why the elder care took the primary hit during the first year. What people are claiming is that most of the lock down strategies of other nations has lite evidence that they worked to protect the elder care system.
A bit of a telling sign is that between Malmö and Copenhagen which is only separated by a bridge, the Swedish side had lower infection rate and deaths compared to the danish side with the stricter lock downs. Malmö however has a younger population and lower population density. Comparing areas of similar density and the levels are more or less identical between Denmark and Sweden, with Stockholm sticking out a bit. A conclusion one could draw is that stricter lock downs might be beneficial in areas of high density near elderly care facilities, with fast diminishing benefits the further you step out of those areas. Future research studies will likely find that out during the next decade, and it will be interesting to see what Sweden should have done in hindsight.
I agree with you. The media mostly ran out of attacks for Sweden, but I guess people can always try out new ones. I was under the impression that they had to stop vilifying Sweden because it ranked 40th in COVID mortality rates (where being ranked 1st means you are the worst in the world). Of course, like in your Denmark example, you have to ensure comparisons are fair since even studies that adjust for age groups among a multitude of other factors are considered incomplete.
I guess it has to be said that it wasn't racist on its face for Tegnell to bring up immigration because it's obviously a factor that contributes to spread. Health authorities have to be aware that immigrants generally have health problems and may even come seeking treatment. At least, that's how it is at the US southern border. In any case, Tegnell won't be sent to a kangaroo court or any other in the foreseeable future. If he did, I suppose part of his defense might be reiterating that he lived in a democracy and, as a government official, he didn't have to power to force people to "do the right thing". It should also be said that he's had to admit where failures happened, such as not doing enough for the elderly and how they were cared for. If all countries have to compare themselves to exceptional countries such as Norway, there's a lot more explaining to do across the board.
Here he is defending himself on UnHerd and I guess (rightly or wrongly) vindicating Sweden's strategy: https://youtu.be/nZRR5zZ0I0s
I suspect that what went wrong with the elder care was a series of mishandling between the government emergency system and the privatized elder care system. Since the cold war Sweden has in contrast to many of the other Nordic countries reduces the stockpile of emergency supplies, possible as a result of leaning a bit much on the US for emergency situations. When the pandemic hit, supplies got depleted fast and the remaining items got reserved for the health staff of hospitals and clinics. The elder care, being mostly operated by for-profit companies, had neither the resources nor will to supply safety gear, training and extra time to their personal. In addition many of the workers got sick which further reduced the time each remaining employee had with the elderly in care. It was only quite later into the pandemic that the situation got so much out of hand that the government started to step in, but which was too little too late.
Tegnell should carry the blame for that, through its a bit complicated. The responsibility for having emergency supply sits on a different government agency, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency that is organised under the Ministry of Justice. The privatization of the elder care was also not tagnells decision but rather a political decision a decade or two ago. Still Tegnell should have acted faster regardless which is the primary critique being brought up in the current review over the handling of the pandemic.
I am just as frustrated as the author with the low level of accountability for poor outcomes that public servant leaders face, he misses the point that not everyone agrees on how different trade offs should be weighted. Sweden received major economic and personal freedom and quality of life benefits in exchange for the somewhat increased mortality.
Also his dishonest summation of immigration/refugee issues/numbers doesn't help his credibility.
I would like to see broader discussions of how we can increase accountability for outcomes of elected leaders, or leaders appointed by governmental organizations.
I think this article is a single narrow approach written in anger and frustration.
I share the frustration but would like to see serious consideration of thr pros and cons of different ways to improve the dire level of accountability, and a lot of brainstorming and outsidr the box ideas.
11 comments
[ 0.15 ms ] story [ 61.3 ms ] thread- implicitly assume a success is achievable within the constraints
- reduce metrics to a single binary number
- put it on a single person
Maybe the whole idea of going into politics should be exactly the same as with many hyper-competitive finance firms. You fail only once, then you’re out.
This is the price you pay for being a leader.
Sometimes non-ideal people take public leadership positions because all other candidates are worse.
> with many hyper-competitive finance firms. You fail only once, then you’re out
I suspect it's only because higher management and/or owners like to see subordinates suffer.
In 2016 Sweden had around 160 000 asylum seekers, and granted around 70 000.
Norway with half the population had 31k asylum seekers, through I don't know the grant rate. In 2017 Norway had reduced those numbers further down to around 3k asylum seekers, while Sweden had 150k.
Similar immigration levels? No. Not even close.
If those numbers are that wrong then I don't trust any other numbers in this article. The connection to covid is also dubious and I have yet to see any such arguments being done in the news. No one is claiming that immigration is the reason why vaccination took until this summer to be made available to the general population, nor why the elder care took the primary hit during the first year. What people are claiming is that most of the lock down strategies of other nations has lite evidence that they worked to protect the elder care system.
A bit of a telling sign is that between Malmö and Copenhagen which is only separated by a bridge, the Swedish side had lower infection rate and deaths compared to the danish side with the stricter lock downs. Malmö however has a younger population and lower population density. Comparing areas of similar density and the levels are more or less identical between Denmark and Sweden, with Stockholm sticking out a bit. A conclusion one could draw is that stricter lock downs might be beneficial in areas of high density near elderly care facilities, with fast diminishing benefits the further you step out of those areas. Future research studies will likely find that out during the next decade, and it will be interesting to see what Sweden should have done in hindsight.
I guess it has to be said that it wasn't racist on its face for Tegnell to bring up immigration because it's obviously a factor that contributes to spread. Health authorities have to be aware that immigrants generally have health problems and may even come seeking treatment. At least, that's how it is at the US southern border. In any case, Tegnell won't be sent to a kangaroo court or any other in the foreseeable future. If he did, I suppose part of his defense might be reiterating that he lived in a democracy and, as a government official, he didn't have to power to force people to "do the right thing". It should also be said that he's had to admit where failures happened, such as not doing enough for the elderly and how they were cared for. If all countries have to compare themselves to exceptional countries such as Norway, there's a lot more explaining to do across the board.
Here he is defending himself on UnHerd and I guess (rightly or wrongly) vindicating Sweden's strategy: https://youtu.be/nZRR5zZ0I0s
Tegnell should carry the blame for that, through its a bit complicated. The responsibility for having emergency supply sits on a different government agency, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency that is organised under the Ministry of Justice. The privatization of the elder care was also not tagnells decision but rather a political decision a decade or two ago. Still Tegnell should have acted faster regardless which is the primary critique being brought up in the current review over the handling of the pandemic.
> "Anders Tegnell’s mass manslaughter"
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Also his dishonest summation of immigration/refugee issues/numbers doesn't help his credibility.
I would like to see broader discussions of how we can increase accountability for outcomes of elected leaders, or leaders appointed by governmental organizations.
I think this article is a single narrow approach written in anger and frustration.
I share the frustration but would like to see serious consideration of thr pros and cons of different ways to improve the dire level of accountability, and a lot of brainstorming and outsidr the box ideas.