The Unquestioned Authority of Anders Tegnell

Whilst controversial abroad, Chief Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell remains a popular figure in Sweden. Why is this the case?

Photo by Jon Flobrant on Unsplash

In an opinion article published in April for Dagens Nyheter (DN), one of Sweden’s foremost newspapers, 22 researchers from prestigious universities decried the country’s coronavirus policy. In drawing upon evidence from neighboring Nordic countries, the article featured a glaring accusation: in insisting upon foregoing strict quarantine measures, Swedish lives were compromised.

“Had there been a thought-out, well-functioning strategy for Swedish virus prevention with regards to Covid-19, Sweden would hardly have had a death toll similar to Italy,” the article claims. 

Today, Sweden’s total death count from coronavirus remains the highest amongst Nordic nations. At the time of writing, there have been over 5,000 deaths, with over 88,000 recorded cases. In comparison, there have been 267 deaths caused by the virus in Norway and 339 in Finland. 

One of the 22 researchers of the article was Dr. Björn Olsen, a professor of infectious medicine at Uppsala University, who would go on to become one of the main voices of opposition to Sweden’s Chief Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell.

In an interview for Expressen, Björn argues: “We should have gone into lockdown, we should have gathered our strength, we should have considered strategies for testing, and the day we felt the infection was under control – after three, four, or five weeks – we could have opened up carefully. Then we could have started with testing more effectively.”

In contrast to Olsen’s preferred strategy, Tegnell and Sweden’s Public Health Agency have pursued a less drastic (and arguably, less safe) approach. Gatherings are limited to up to 50 people, and the government does not actively promote wearing masks. 

However, there have also been some relatively stringent measures put in place. Following an increase in deaths throughout retirement homes (which is now seen as the cause of Sweden’s spike during spring), visits were banned. People above the age of 70 have been advised to stay home and travel was not encouraged. Rather than restriction, the Swedish strategy is mostly based on recommendation, thereby relying on trust between the government and the population. 

In spite of the controversial nature of his policies, Tegnell maintained a tight grasp of public trust. In a study by Ipsos and DN in June (a period where deaths were decreasing, but cases still increased), Tegnell held a 69 per cent approval rating, with only 11 per cent of the population disagreeing with his policies.

Although Tegnell has faced criticism abroad, such skepticism has failed to permeate into Sweden’s media landscape.

With policies failing to protect such large swaths of people, one would expect some form of backlash. When spending the summer at home in Stockholm, I wondered how Tegnell maintained such a positive public image. Now, I believe that Tegnell’s popularity can be explained by his positive depictions in Swedish news outlets. 

Currently, Sweden’s coronavirus cases are decreasing by the day and as a result many headlines are take on a worryingly pro-government tone. In early September, Svenska Dagbladet (SVD) – one of Sweden’s leading newspapers – published an article with the title “Revenge: Today everyone follows Sweden’s strategy.” In Expressen, the coronavirus update section contains titles such as “WHO is studying the Swedish coronavirus strategy” and “Tegnell is praised by British magazine: ‘National hero’”. Wondering which British magazine? Of course, The Sun. 

In contrast to the relative support experienced by Tegnell, the Swedish media has been quick to point out discrepancies in Olsen’s camp. In an interview for SVD, Joacim Rocklöv of Umeå University - one of the twenty-two researchers who co-authored the contentious article in April - was revealed to disagree with some aspects of the piece’s argument. When asked if he felt regret for stirring anxiety, he replied: “yes, of course, I don’t want to cause worry.” 

Despite the article’s suggestions to pursue harsher measures like Britain or Finland, he personally did not agree with such approaches, claiming “when it comes to school closures…. I don’t have the background to approach the question holistically. I remember saying on [the television show] Agenda that I am not a fan of lockdown, but that social distancing is important.” 

In other articles, it is clear that Olsen does not hold a favorable image. In a feature for SVD, Olsen is depicted as forgetful, sloppy, and irresponsible. The article claims his interview responses are “rarely exact, but instead often fleeting, changing.” The author explains “the professor periodically puts in a new portion of dry snuff and drinks coffee cup after coffee cup. Usually he does not even eat lunch. He does not think it is so important to spray his hands with sanitizer when it comes to Covid-19 either.”

The same article also claims that a key study conducted by Olsen was in fact done without an ethical review permit, from which some individuals in the trial are suspected of having contracted Covid-19. In response, Olsen explained: “We had submitted an ethics application but received no response. Everyone kept their distance, most tests took place outdoors and the vast majority of the testers or those who were tested had mouth guards.”

Whilst this initial information seems incriminating, the results of the test were staggering. At the time, the Swedish Public Health Agency boasted that 20 to 50 per cent of Stockholm’s population would be immune by April. However, the study revealed that the figure would be as low as 7.5 per cent. 

“We had a moral duty to share what we had found,” Olsen asserted.

With the decrease in cases, many are questioning whether it is Tegnell’s policies or Olsen’s that hold authority. But to suddenly declare Sweden’s policies as successful – as international media has been quick to do – is flawed. In the words of Financial Times columnist Wolfgang Münchau, “It was wrong two months ago to condemn the Swedish strategy…and it would be equally wrong to draw the opposite conclusion now.” 

Both Olsen and Tegnell deserve credit for defending their beliefs, whatever their personal habits or lives may be like. However, drawing simplistic conclusions and depicting health professionals as heroes or villains is irresponsible. In the case of pandemic, we cannot afford to rely on caricatures. Our judgement should be based on policy.

Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.