SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

OPINION AND ANALYSIS

OPINION: The pandemic has caused divides and damaged friendships in Sweden

Socialising has been restricted in Sweden during the Covid-19 pandemic, but the impact on friendships goes beyond that, writes Lisa Bjurwald. Can friendships survive a crisis that has split the country into two distinct camps?

OPINION: The pandemic has caused divides and damaged friendships in Sweden
A sign in Stockholm reminds people to limit socialising to only 'a few friends', but it's not only the regulations that have impacted friendships. Photo: Fredrik Sandberg/TT

“I don’t know how I’m going to deal with post-pandemic life in Sweden,” a well-established journalist wrote on Facebook recently. “My entire view of life, of other Swedes, of the society we live in has been completely turned on its head. I don’t think I’ll ever be the same again.”

Tellingly, the comments field was a mish-mash of those who exclaimed how “spot on!” the writer was (“husband and I are thinking of emigrating”), and those who had no idea what he was on about. Was something going on in his personal life, or why was he so upset?

It’s hard to think of another issue in recent years – even in a lifetime – that’s been so divisive in our social lives as the Covid-19 pandemic (except, of course, the Blur vs Oasis Brit-pop battle of the mid-’90’s. Still not speaking to the Blur phalanx). Some of my friendships are so fragile at this point that it feels like they could shatter into a thousand pieces the minute this is all over – and I know I’m not alone.

Why? For one, the advent of Covid-19 is not a political or cultural phenomenon that can be easily brushed aside, a “the two of us go way back, our friendship is beyond petty politics” that can be applied to matters like the left-right political divide. The pandemic touches upon the most fundamental issues of our existence; not just the obvious one of life and death, but who we are as citizens, small parts of a greater, 10 million-plus strong Us. Your actions during the pandemic speak volumes about what kind of person you are, no matter how glossy your Instagram or how much you donate to Amnesty each month.

Of course, there are two sides of this Covid social war, and a new, self-explanatory Swedish word for us holding forth in the socially distanced (or “dull,” “judgmental”) camp: coronamoralister.

By some, we’re seen as epic party-poopers, wagging our fingers at those free-loving spirits who’ve decided the pandemic is over… because they say so. My favourite put-down over the past year has got to be coronarädd (afraid of the coronavirus). Maintaining the proper distance and wearing a mask at a brief meeting, the person uttering it did so without any malice, which just made it more absurd: “You who are coronarädd will notice that…”. Wait, say what?

It’s worth considering that the singular Swedish strategy could have contributed to labels such as coronamoralist and coronarädd.

When a nation doesn’t go for extensive risk-minimizing in the face of a threat, a large part of the population is bound to interpret said threat as a minor one – thus brushing off those who follow “recommendations” as if they were the law as frightened sheep, with a clear slant towards ridicule.

Not to mention wearing a mask despite Swedish authorities going to great lengths in pointing out how useless it is. I’ve been smacked down with coronahaverist (“corona querulant”) for that one.

So how on earth are our friendships going to survive these polarising times? According to a poll published last month, all of them won’t. 43 percent of Swedes say their friendships have suffered during the pandemic, and 33 percent have a worse
relationship with their relatives now than before Covid-19. Friendships are at a particularly rough place in the Swedish capital: more than every other Stockholmer says their friendships are worse off today. And it’s probably not just because of social distancing.

“My friends are not taking the pandemic seriously,” a reader recently lamented to the resident Svenska Dagbladet psychologist. “I can’t stand their egoism. Should I stop socialising with them?”

In essence, the advice was: You’re not alone in being annoyed with friends and family who aren’t acting responsibly. But it’s difficult to always do the right thing, especially when in a prolonged crisis, and your friendships deserve you having another go at talking sense into your friends.

But perhaps some friendships shouldn’t survive? It’s just as easy getting stuck in a dull non-romantic relationship as in the romantic variety, but we’re often less inclined to cut off the platonic ones. From a Swedish perspective, it could be because of our fear of confrontations – and because we don’t know how to replace them. Studies have long shown that Swedes, and international people who move here, struggle to make new friends. Stockholm is even in the last place of the Friends & Socializing chart of Expat Insider’s Getting Settled 2020 Index.

Well, here’s an opportunity for improvement. If you don’t share fundamental values with your
friends, why bother keeping up the charade? Now is a great time to tighten the bonds with those whom we do share our core values with.

More from Lisa Bjurwald:

Lisa Bjurwald is a Swedish journalist and author covering current affairs, culture and politics since the mid-1990s. Her latest work BB-krisen, on the Swedish maternity care crisis, was dubbed Best reportage book of 2019 by Aftonbladet daily newspaper. She is also an external columnist for The Local – read her columns here.

Do you agree with this opinion piece? Leave a comment below, or fill out the form. We may use your responses for a future article on The Local

Member comments

  1. I think if any survey came out with results as generic as to answer the question ” has the pandemic adversely affected your family and friendship relationships?” the answer would have to be a resounding “yes”. That doesn’t mean that people have conflicting views on how strictly or lax their approach to the pandemic has been. Nor does the testimony of one psychologist.

    The author of this piece does not state explicitly her views on how people are behaving in Sweden, but implicitly she suggests that in general people are not being as careful as they could be.

    My experience in Sweden is that people have been very careful in how they interact with others. While there are always people who disregard recommendations, in my view, by and large Swedish people have been taking matters seriously.

    Sweden is alone in the world in trusting its population to do the right thing, treating them like adults and not enforcing total lockdowns which show no evidence of resulting in a better result vis a vis minimizing the effects of the pandemic.

    Countries that have enforced total lockdowns face reactionary behaviour that results in bigger problems than Sweden has ever had to face. The UK has been through 3 total mind sucking / blowing lockdowns and still the death rate is higher.

    Opinions such as the one put forth in this article are unhelpful, implicitly adding logs to a fire that would encourage our government to consider total lockdown. We should not go in this direction. If the author thinks we should she should state her reasons in straightforward terms.

    We do however, need articles that cover the devastating effect that the pandemic has had psychologically on the population, and in particular on the younger citizens of our country who are growing up like animals in a caged zoo. We who are older have the benefit of experience and memories of what they real world was like. They don’t and their lives are on hold. Are they, not the older generation, will be the ones faced with the enormous debt burden all countries are incurring in the name of closing down the economy because of the pandemic.

    Total lockdowns were from the get go the wrong strategic decision for dealing with the pandemic. The approach all along should have been protect the most vulnerable, but continue to keep the economy and society going / interacting.

    And what will be next? Governments suggesting we should keep the economy permanently closed because of each new strain that is discovered. Where does that go? It leads to death for everyone.

    So as the author says, it is time to put the pandemic behind us and applaud Sweden, her country and people, for the unique approach it has taken to the pandemic, one that I believe in hindsight will prove to have been the right course of action.

    1. You are a faker, you know that there is a spectrum of responses that can be taken. Until recently Swedes were only asked to wear a mask two hours a day on public transit, more could have been asked or demanded before reaching a total lockdown.

  2. “They were going to die anyway” – an actual quote I heard from a Swede about the old people that died due to Sweden’s terrible COVID-19 response.

    “I think Sweden has done a great job handling the crisis” – quote from a Swede. Me: “What about the 5,000 old people that died.” Them: “Yeah, I guess we could have done that better, but still.”

    Coronavirus deaths:
    Sweden: 13262
    Finland: 808
    Norway: 649

    A friend of mine drives a bus taking old people to doctors appointments. One year into the pandemic, and the bus agency is CONSIDERING recommending that their drivers wear masks.

    Sweden’s response has been a joke. Sweden has always wanted to be the moral big brother in the world who knows best. This time they were wrong. They ignored science, acted like they were saving their economy, but really the economy is no better or worse that neighboring countries. Sweden went nuts when the MS Estonia sank and 500 Swedes died. But I guess 5,000 old people don’t matter to a country that sends off their elderly to homes anyway.

  3. No one wants anyone to die needlessly. Everyone who is sane wants to preserve life. I am a liberal minded person who wants to live in a tolerant society that cares for all people in that society. I believe Sweden is currently the best example of such a society.

    When we are faced with a threat to society that affects everyone, it is only natural that we take everyone’s lot in that society into consideration. The most vulnerable, but also the large majority that propel that society forward.

    It is time we suspend our need to bicker about hurt feelings, and bad things people might say in public to us, even if we are doing the right thing. And yes, we should continue to do the right thing, social distance etc, and lead by example. But let us not bitch and complain and say it is time to leave this country. Such sentiments are weak, and frankly not worthy of this website.

    To conduct a survey that leads with a piece about hurt emotions and asking for “objective” feedback is preposterous. And irrelevant. Constructing so called objective data. Rubbish.

    We need strong voices that carve a new way forward, not those who would just point a finger and say how bad everything is. This country has something special, people who continue on with their lives in the face of a very uncertain threat.

    This happened once before. In WW 2, in the UK the saying was “Keep Calm and Carry On”. We need more of this today.

    @RT above seems to think we’ve done a terrible job here. He or she must be an expat else why read this newspaper. So then RT: where would you go where it would be better? Finland, Norway? They are experiencing new waves that prove lockdowns don’t work. We will only know once there is herd immunity. Yes, I said it, “herd immunity”, so come at me.

    It is sad that the author of this piece has had names called against her and people of her views. That is certainly not the kind of behaviour I would condone or approve of. I think all people should be entitled to take precautions freely and without insult. But it is by no means enough worth suggesting that we change the policy this country has taken.

    I don’t think self consciousness, hurt feelings and personal sorrow, even though we may all feel this, is at all what is required in the days that follow. We need to get our society back.

    People are naturally gregarious. To ask them not be is an insult to humanity. To condemn them for wanting to be together is medieval. No matter what the cause. Humanity must go on, yes we must protect the vulnerable, to do otherwise would be barbaric. But society in general must go on, and those who want to interact safely must be entitled to go on with their lives, and seize the day.

    We face tough times. That requires tough people, willing to get along with one another. So let’s just drop the moaning about hurt feelings at parties where one wears a mask and is mocked. You are better than this.

    1. There’s kind of a lot to unpack in what you said. I recently moved with my family to Sweden. All of the friends I have here are through my wife. She had one friend whom test positive and didn’t isolate or wear a mask, her rationalization was that she did t have any contact with older at risk people. I believe her response was a product of official messaging, an attitude of indifference towards other, and I think it was wrong. This isn’t an issue of naturally gregarious people having the right to “safely” socialize and not calling each other names. This is a matter of what we are all will to do for the people we love and don’t love to keep them safe from a disease that is not well understood and does not only effect the old. Also why do waves in other places disprove their methods but Swedish waves don’t disprove Swedish methods.

  4. Great article (and I’m glad to finally see some comment activity)!

    The point about reevaluating friendships is really important, especially considering how difficult it is to meet new people at this time. One empathetic way to look at the situation is that we all deal with trauma (and death) differently. I’m accommodating of all my friend’s approaches. While I’ve used the “When in Sweden…” approach, I’m also critical of the Public Health Authority’s response, even more so now that they’ve backtracked.

    I really think Anders Tegnell should step down. Maybe then people will start following the new “RECOMMENDATIONS”. He made a mistake with the first 6 months of the pandemic response. Personally, I would have followed his predecessor’s emailed advice or followed Korea and Japan’s approaches.
    Good luck with the 4th and 5th wave, team Sweden.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

EUROPEAN UNION

Should Sweden abandon a weak krona for the euro?

With the 20th anniversary of Sweden's euro referendum this month, the weak krona has revived the long dormant debate over Swedish membership. We look at why joining the single currency looks more attractive today.

Should Sweden abandon a weak krona for the euro?

The krona hitting rock bottom has reawakened a debate that had been dead for twenty years.

Hedge fund manager Christer Gardell kickstarted the debate before the New Year, when he said Sweden should abandon the krona, which was now “a shitty little currency”. In January, the Moderate Party grandee Gunnar Hökmark, chief of the Frivärld think-tank and long-term euro advocate, argued that Sweden should join.

Veteran economist Lars Calmfors, who chaired the government inquiry which in 1999 recommended that Sweden stay outside, made a similar call shortly afterwards. Carl Hammer, chief strategist at SEB, who had voted against joining in the 2003 referendum wrote in May that he, too, was now “leaning towards a ‘yes'” on euro membership. 

Now one of Sweden’s three government parties has started to campaign on the issue. The Liberal Party, long in theory in favour of euro membership, on September 4th called for a new government inquiry on joining the currency. 

“We can quite simply no longer afford to stay outside [the euro],” the party’s leader Johan Pehrson wrote in the Aftonbladet newspaper. “Let’s upgrade our EU membership from ‘basic’ to ‘premium’. Let’s bring in the euro now!'” 

Is it a hot topic? 

According to Calmfors and Hammer, the debate is raging in the circles they move in, but has yet to really spread to the general public. 

“Between 2010 and the end of last year, I don’t think I was asked even once to speak about Sweden and the euro. But now I have two or three invitations each week, and in fact six this week when we are approaching the 20th anniversary of the referendum.” 

“I see a lot of academic and business seminars on the weak krona,” Hammer agreed.

For both of them, the revival in interest has come about mainly due to the weakness of the krona, which Calmfors complained had been trading as if Sweden were a “banana republic”. And unlike during the 1999 internet crash or the 2007 financial crisis, when a drop in the krona helped bolster Sweden’s economy, this time the weak currency was causing problems. 

“Earlier it has benefitted us,” Calmfors said. “The krona depreciated and firms could gain market share. It helped stabilise output and employment,” he explained. “But this time, it’s different. Now, the depreciation of the krona counteracts the efforts of the Riksbank to get inflation down and reduce aggregate demand. So this time, it is a problem.” 

For Hammer, the weakness of the krona was more understandable, reflecting a flight to strong currencies in reaction to the war in Ukraine.

“Had we not had Ukraine, and had we not had other global issues, I think the krona would have been stronger,” he said.

Calmfors isn’t so certain about this, pointing out that the Swiss Franc, another small floating currency, has not been similarly weak. He does, however, see the invasion of Ukrainian as the second big reason why the euro debate has revived. 

“The war in Ukraine has made Swedes recalibrate our view of our position in the world,” he said. “The application for Nato membership is the most obvious evidence for this, but I think it spills over to the euro issue as well.”

Lars Calmfors, Professor Emeritus in Economics at Stockholm University. Photo: Anders Wiklund/TT

HOW HAVE THE FUNDAMENTALS CHANGED? 

1. Sweden’s government finances are much stronger

While the weak krona is the catalyst for the debate, for Calmfors, the improvement in Sweden’s government finances is a much better reason for sceptics to change their minds. 

When he submitted his report in 1999, his committee’s main argument against joining was the risk of a country-specific economic shock which would affect Sweden, but not other EU countries. Such a shock would be hard to combat if Sweden no longer had the freedom to set its own interest rates or devalue its currency. 

“We argued that (…) it’s good to have your own monetary policy, an exchange rate that can change,” he said. 

At that time, Sweden’s national debt was at 70-75 percent of GDP, well above the 60 percent that is the (increasingly theoretical) maximum for countries signed up to the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact.

“This was very important in the 1990s, because we had a sovereign debt crisis in Sweden, so fiscal policy could not be used as a substitute for monetary policy,” he remembered. 

Now, Sweden’s national debt is just 35 percent of GDP, well below that of France at 98 percent or Germany at 60 percent and, for Calmfors, this removes the biggest obstacle to joining, as Sweden’s government would be able to spend its way out of any country-specific shock.

“That’s very low in an international context, so we have a lot of fiscal firepower. No one would argue with us if we had an expansionary fiscal policy.” 

Hammer, arguing along the same lines, pointed out that in the years before and since the euro referendum, Sweden had never in fact suffered the sort of country-specific shock that Calmfors and his committee had worried about. The Riksbank, meanwhile, had always run a monetary policy in line with that of the European Central Bank. 

“For the past 30 years, Sweden has been living with a floating exchange rate but living as if we’ve had a fixed exchange rate,” he said. 

The country, he explained, had had strict limitations on government spending, a surplus target, a very coordinated and orderly wage bargaining process, and a fully funded pension system. “So if any country would have the room and possibility to live with a fixed exchange rate, it’s Sweden.”  

2. Businesses don’t use the krona anyway 

For Hammer, the biggest new argument against the krona is not so much improved government finances as the fact that Sweden’s big companies now barely use it.

And the same goes for Sweden’s pension funds.

“Large corporations don’t want to deal in the krona – they prefer to make transactions and trade in euros and dollars – and we channel a huge part of our surplus or excess savings into foreign asset markets,” he said. “So, we’ve already to some extent adopted foreign currencies, but we’ve also kept the krona, which from my perspective makes the arguments for having it less strong.”

It is this which has pushed him towards a “yes” despite continuing to believe that the euro is “a suboptimal currency union”.  

“I’m leaning towards voting yes if we were to have a new referendum on the basis that the foundation for the currency has been undermined by the fact that we’re so dependent on foreign currency,” he said. “From that perspective, I think, you can make a case for joining the euro on the grounds of greater financial stability.” 

3. After Brexit Sweden looks more and more alone

With the UK leaving the European Union altogether, Croatia joining the euro this year, Bulgaria scheduled to join in 2025, and Romania in 2026, the number of countries who are in the EU but not the eurozone is falling. 

“If you ask people, like Swedish commissioners in the EU or people that have been doing negotiations in in the EU, they have the view that we have lost out by not belonging to the core,” Calmfors said. “The risk that we will lose out probably becomes bigger, the greater the share of EU countries that adopt the euro.”

Carl Hammer, chief strategist at Sweden’s SEB Bank. Photo: SEB

WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS NOT TO JOIN?

1. The risk of country-specific shocks is real 

Just because Sweden has more fiscal firepower to deal with a country specific shock does not mean the risk of such shocks is not a major drawback to euro membership. 

Finland suffered one when Nokia, far and away the country’s biggest company, mismanaged its reaction to the launch of the iPhone and exited to the mobile phone business. Between 2008 and 2022 its debt to GDP ratio more than doubled from 33 percent to 74 percent. 

Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal arguably suffered from the issue during the European banking crisis.

As Sweden’s economy is unusually sensitive to interest rates, with much higher private debt and a high share of variable rate mortgages, the ECB could easily set an interest rate that, while right for most eurozone countries, would be too high for Sweden. 

“That could be a problem, but it’s also a problem that could be dealt with by using fiscal policy,” Calmfors argues. 

2. The risk of bank bailouts and country bailouts remains 

The other big argument against joining the euro, which was clearly demonstrated during the European debt crisis from 2009 until about 2014, is that Sweden would have to help bail out countries, such as Italy and Greece, which have been less disciplined in the management of their government finances. 

Joining the euro would also mean joining the European Banking Union, which means that Sweden might also have to participate in rescuing banks in countries with less well-functioning financial supervision.

Calmfors acknowledged that this was still a risk, but argued that members of the European Union who are not part of the eurozone were increasingly being asked to contribute to rescue packages anyway. 

“If you look at the support after the Covid crisis and during the Covid crisis, we had to pay that as well, even though we were not a member of the monetary union,” he said. 

And when it came to bank bailouts, Sweden was, he argued, as likely to benefit as to lose out, given the high indebtedness of Sweden’s citizens. 

“We might end up having to pay for bank crises in other countries. But on the other hand, we would also be helped if we had a financial crisis, which of course is not something we can rule out,” he said. 

Also, he said there might be an advantage in having banks and other financial services regulated by the European Central Bank and other European regulators, as a European regulator might have more expertise, there are many cross-border links between banks, and there would be less of a risk of a cosy relationship building up between local banks and the regulator.   

HOW HAVE THE ADVANTAGES OF EURO MEMBERSHIP CHANGED?

Calmfors argues that while the negative risks of adopting the euro have diminished, the advantages remain more or less the same. 

“The biggest benefit is of course that having different currencies is a kind of trade impediment and that would be eliminated, which would mean more trade, which would mean that we use our resources more efficiently, so it would give slightly higher growth over a long period, which, even if small each year, would accumulate to quite a lot in the long term.” 

Recent research suggested, he added, that this effect might be more significant than people previously thought. 

“Studies seem to point to much bigger effects than we expected in the 1990s. We’re talking about a 10 to 20 percent increase in trade, not from one year to another, but over a number of years,” he said. 

The problem with the debate over euro membership had always been, he concluded, that the benefits and risks were of such a different character. 

“You can’t really make an economic calculation, because you are comparing different things: We are comparing small, but certain positive gains – because there will be more trade that we will get slowly over years – with a risk of big macroeconomic shocks that can have huge effects over a few years.”

This makes it hard for economists to reach a firm conclusion. 

“You can’t really say what is right and wrong, but I think what you can say is that the balance has shifted in the direction of being a more positive calculation for being a member today than there was 25 years ago.” 

SHOW COMMENTS