There's no good reason why Sweden isn't on our quarantine-free list

You don’t hear much about Sweden any more. A few months ago, not a day passed without some media report dismissing the country’s brazen lack of lockdown. For keeping basic liberties intact and its economy ticking over, and for asking residents to use their common sense rather than imposing draconian restrictions, the country was characterised as unforgivably heartless. Never mind the thousands of lives sacrificed to non-Covid illnesses in lockdown-loving Britain, nor the spiralling job losses, or the colossal damage to our mental health.

Now, however, there’s a spooky silence on the opinion desks of the Guardian and the New York Times. Sweden’s strategy appears to be reaping rewards. Across Europe, those countries that forced their citizens to stay at home are seeing big increases in Covid cases, while laissez-faire Sweden, benefitting, many believe, from a degree of herd immunity, has seen new infections plummet.

In Spain, for example, home to Europe’s strictest lockdown, the one-week case rate has soared from below 20 per 100,000 around six weeks ago to 127.7 as of yesterday. In France, which gave Spain a run for its money, it has risen to 64.5. But in Sweden, it has fallen from 20.8 a month ago to just 9.2, making it, statistically, one of Europe’s safest holiday options. And Sweden is happy to have you, with no restrictions on any arrivals from EU or EEA countries (including the UK). Stylish Stockholm, with its beautiful islands, awaits. BA has seats left on tomorrow’s 1325 departure from Heathrow.

There’s just one problem. The UK Government, in its wisdom, still hasn’t deigned to offer the Scandinavian country a “travel corridor”, meaning all visitors must self-isolate for 14 days on their return to Blighty.

What reason could it possibly have to keep Sweden on the red list? That seven-day case of 9.2 per 100,000 is well below the UK’s apparent quarantine threshold of 20, and a little more than half that of the UK (15.8). It is less than many other countries that do have travel corridors, including Portugal (23.4), Italy (15.3), Greece (13.4) and even Germany (9.6).

What of the other criteria the Department of Health says it takes into account when deciding which countries to put on the quarantine naughty step?

There’s “trends in incidence, deaths and hospitalisations”. Well, yes, they are all going down in Sweden and they have been for weeks.

Then there’s “population size of the country” and “volume of passengers coming into the UK from that country”. Sweden’s population (10.3m) is similar to that of Greece (10.7m), and is dwarfed by Italy’s (60.4m). Furthermore, it attracts far fewer Britons than the two Mediterranean summer favourites (around 850,000 in a normal year, most of whom go to enjoy outdoor pursuits – not to cavort in crowded nightclubs). So that can’t be a factor.

What about “an assessment of the quality of the data available and public health systems”? The World Health Organisation (WHO) put Sweden at number 23 in a recent ranking of the world’s best countries for healthcare, ahead of Germany, Finland, Denmark, and a host of other travel corridor nations.

Then there’s “extent and effectiveness of measures being deployed by a country”. Yes, it isn’t slapping face masks on its people – a measure that doesn’t seem to have done Spain much good – but, contrary to what you might believe, Sweden has imposed some restrictions on large gatherings, while social distancing guidance is widely adhered to.

Like it or not, its lighter touch is clearly working, and for an endorsement of its methods, one need look no further than the WHO. Johan Giesecke, the advisor who helped craft Sweden’s coronavirus policy, was last week given a senior position at the organisation, giving him significant influence over its future strategy to contain the pandemic. David Nabarro, a WHO envoy on Covid-19, recently praised Sweden’s approach, which offered proof “you can go about life while having the virus in your midst”.

The full list of criteria used by the Government to decide whether to impose a quarantine is listed below. None seem to justify applying a quarantine on visitors to Sweden.

• An estimate of the proportion of the population that is currently infectious in each country

• Virus incidence rates and rates of change

• Trends in incidence, deaths and hospitalisations

• Imported infections identified through UK contact tracing

• Transmission status and international epidemic intelligence

• Information on a country’s testing capacity, testing regime and test positivity rate

• An assessment of the quality of the data available and public health systems

• Extent and effectiveness of measures being deployed by a country

• Volume of passengers coming into the UK from that country

• Population size of the country

Therefore, one can only deduce that Sweden’s snubbing is political. Perhaps admitting that a country which didn’t put its people under house arrest, isn’t imposing quarantine on holidaymakers returning from the Med, isn’t making its citizens cover their faces, and isn’t continuing to tell us how and where we can see our friends and family, is a safer place right now than those countries that did, and are, is a pill the UK Government isn’t ready to swallow.