I think it's misguided to look to Sweden as a role model, irrespective of what one might feel/think about how Sweden's handling compares to the UK's (which many Britons understandably view as utterly shambolic). Sweden's handling of the pandemic has been a dismal failure in many respects—whether you look at public health, healthcare, ethics, economics, social aspects or politics. We have very high case numbers, a large and growing group of people burdened by protracted convalescence and/or post-covid complications, high and rapidly rising pressure on healthcare resources, a number of ethically dubious decisions, no comparative economic benefit, deepening socioeconomic inequality and what looks to be a political nightmare up ahead. The one respect in which Sweden can be admired, from the UK's perspective, is that our govt. & authorities have been fairly consistent and steady; people haven't had to constantly adjust to new and complicated guidelines or restrictions of extremely varying severity (as parts of England have had to, for example). If a country is unable or unwilling to tackle a pandemic head-on, I guess it's better to acknowledge that outright and opt for the next best approach. However, even from that perspective, we could and should've done better—ie. even the failures have been more egregious than they had to be.
Much of the agenda-driven reporting on Sweden overlooks our circumstances. Sweden is a highly organized, comparatively wealthy, high-trust nation with a healthy population, strong labour protections and a substantial welfare system—including very generous and uncomplicated paid sick leave rules. Although most Swedes live in built-up areas such as towns and cities, much of the population is spread out over a large area, with long distances to crowded urban areas. Although Swedes travel a lot, and Stockholm is a very active city, int'l connections aren't on the same level as eg. London, Paris, Brussels, etc. All of that to say we had every advantage a country might want in the event of a deadly viral pandemic—and we squandered them all. So, comparing Sweden's performance with that of UK, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium etc. is damning in itself.
It's possible that the second wave in Sweden is looking better than it is in those other countries, but it's on track to get as bad as or worse than things were in spring—which was hell, in large parts of the country, including the most distant and most sparsely populated regions. I suspect some of the advantage comes from each wave kicking off somewhat later here than in other countries—which, again, is a squandered advantage. Another "advantage" is that testing capacity is saturated in several regions, and people aren't really all that keen on getting tested, so it's difficult to trust our case numbers. Number of pts in intensive care is rising rapidly, as is the number of patients in need of fairly extensive intermediate care. At the same time, primary & specialist care providers are trying to deal with a growing number of people experiencing possible/likely post-covid complications or just in need of extensive rehab at a scale that most developed countries simply cannot provide.
As for major changes, practically nothing has changed wrt the guidance from our public health agency. The messaging from the govt. has changed somewhat, as has the covid-related discourse among healthcare professionals, both in response to increasing awareness of just how much our approach has deviated from int'l expert consensus—and how much it's costing us, as a society and as a corps (unlike spring, several of my colleagues have now gotten covid). Some regional & municipal authorities have begun to disregard the public health ministry's guidance, aligning their local guidelines more with int'l recs adapted to local circumstances (for example, recently, hospitals in several regions implemented a general mask order for personnel); at the same time you have stupid things like med-students having to travel by tube or bus to sit in a room with 70 others for a written exam that could've been conducted digitally. Politically, the matter is increasingly polarized. One huge thing that happened recently is that our health inspectorate released an absolutely devastating report describing how thousands of frail institutionalized elderly had died without adequate medical assessment, care and information. So, if anyone is saying the UK should be more like Sweden, they should be invited to consider this shocking disregard for the basic human dignity of old people—as well as for medical ethics and the law.
tl; dr: if you love your fellow island-dwellers, do not, under any circumstances, seek to emulate Sweden's pandemic response—but, in anticipation of future pandemics, consider emulating those policies that gave us the structural advantages we've squandered.
The messaging hasn't changed much in response to the vaccine news. Although this looks like a much better scenario than feared/expected, ensuring sufficient vaccine coverage will be difficult and take time; even with high vaccine coverage at home, we're probably going to have to live with the specter of covid outbreaks for a long time. Consequently, authorities have been consistently communicating a need for society to adjust to a new reality in which life won't be quite like what it was prior to the pandemic. To that end, our govt. is working on pandemic-related bills and plans that might not be ready until spring/summer at the earliest. I suspect they're being extra cautious due to Sweden's tragic experiences with the Pandemrix vaccine.Also much of the Swedish logic seemed to be that this was a virus that needed to be lived with for years and potentially no vaccine could arrive for years. Does the arrival of a vaccine change the arithmetic?
I think many among the general public—and in the media—share this view, but nothing has changed wrt the official messaging.For me people catching the virus and dying from it now, with a vaccine imminently available, is like those who went over the top in November 1918. If there is a vaccine imminently available that's all the more reason to be ultra cautious until the vulnerable at least are vaccinated.
Hancock and others are not giving the public an accurate picture of what happened. More info here: https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/s...06285890019330
Pfizer and Moderna have only just now applied for formal marketing authorization with the EMA, which has been conducting its own rolling review alongside the MHRA—on the basis of more data. The UK is authorizing the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine under a provision of EU law that grants national authorities leave to authorize the use of unlicensed products under some circumstances. This option is available to EU member states as well (domestic laws in each resp. state permitting).