Why Sweden's Vindication on Lockdowns Needs to Be Celebrated

For those who don’t know, Sweden was mocked and attacked by media and lockdown proponents brutally the last three years.

As some readers know, I wrote about Sweden's pandemic policies recently. More specifically, I wrote about the New York Times’ surprising admission that Sweden’s approach was not “a disastrous one.”

In fact, the paper included a quote from a professor of computational biology at University College London who said Sweden’s approach suggests “mitigation measures can be effectively deployed in a respectful, largely non-coercive way.”

As someone who has been writing about Sweden’s Covid policies for literally three years, this admission was a big deal to me. And I’m pleased to see the article is doing well. It’s the top article of the year on FEE.org, and has been republished in several other media outlets.

For those who don’t know, Sweden was mocked and attacked by media and lockdown proponents brutally the last three years; the architect of their pandemic strategy, Anders Tegnell, received death threats. But since the beginning of the pandemic, I’ve believed the Swedish approach had merits that were being ignored. Data supported my thesis, which I presented in articles time and again. (Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here , here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

To see the NYT coming around to Sweden’s strategy is a big deal—and I don’t mean for my ego. A lot depends on us learning from the mistakes of the pandemic—human lives and livelihoods, freedom and happiness.

I’ve had a few discussions on this subject with radio and podcast hosts this week, and will have some more next week. Check out my interview with Michael Liebowitz, host of the Rational Egoist, below.