Considering the concept of harm reduction, I have already shown why the best result is achieved not through prohibition and accusation, but through awareness and attempts to encourage a person toward less risky behavior. For example, the needle exchange program during the AIDS crisis in the 80s, which allowed drug users to take fewer risks by using fresh syringes instead of the same ones repeatedly and sharing them among several people, proved to be much more effective than strict prohibitions. Program participants began to use drugs less frequently, their health improved, and many of them eventually voluntarily sought help for addiction treatment.
Similarly, awareness and encouraging people toward less risky behavior could have been used instead of harsh coercive measures in the fight against coronavirus. Unfortunately, most governments chose the second method. However, it is good that not all of them decided to resort to force and strict prohibitions, so we can easily compare the results of these approaches. Research on the impact of strict measures, light measures, and all measures combined on the growth of infections has already long shown that both types of measures produce approximately the same effect. This means that the introduction of harsh coercive measures is unnecessary, or even harmful, given their consequences for social and economic life.
Sweden is a good example. From the very beginning of the pandemic, it refused to introduce harsh and coercive measures within its country; even the wearing of masks, which was mandatory almost worldwide, remained only recommendatory in Sweden. Initially, the number of infections and deaths greatly exceeded the corresponding figures in other countries (though in reality, this was not the case in all instances; for example, they were quite comparable to the figures in France). However, it was already clear then that compared to other countries, Sweden’s economy would suffer less and recover faster after the pandemic. And importantly, the last wave of the pandemic, which put many countries in a critical position, had almost no impact on Sweden. By the way, the inspiration for writing this post was the comparison between the situation in Israel, where people are already being given a third dose of the vaccine, where covid passports are being actively implemented, and where there were multiple lockdowns, and Sweden, where there is and was nothing of the sort. At the same time, in both countries, the vaccination level for the first and second doses is approximately the same, but the situation is fundamentally different.
Slightly stricter measures were introduced in other Scandinavian countries—Denmark and Norway. The governments of these countries, of course, called these measures extremely harsh, but if compared to measures in other countries, they also seem quite mild. It is also worth mentioning an experiment conducted in Norway. Fitness clubs were considered breeding grounds for coronavirus, so they were closed at first. Later, 5 clubs were opened, allowing half of their clients to attend classes and the other half not to. As a result, over two weeks of observation, only one case of illness was registered, although it was in the group attending fitness clubs, but the infected person had not even managed to reach the sports facility. Also, the director of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health claims that the country could have gotten by without quarantine and achieved the same results. In general, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have already lifted all restrictive measures (except for border controls) and were the first in Europe to return to the life they had before the pandemic. Other countries are still very far from this.
Thus, we are once again convinced that awareness and encouragement of less risky behavior can achieve at least the same, if not more, than strict prohibitions, control, and force. And in general, a huge price will have to be paid for harsh measures in any case. So what is the point if, in the end, they cause more harm than good?
