“Lockdowns were introduced because it was believed that they were the only way to prevent cases spiralling out of control” says Christopher Snowdon, IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics, but Sweden has shown us such restrictions weren’t necessary to curb the virus.

Writing for Spiked!, Christopher argues that Sweden did not do nothing, instead taking smaller, more targeted measures to curb the spread of coronavirus.

“There was plenty of social distancing and working from home. Gatherings of more than 50 people were banned and children aged 16 to 18 no longer went to school. The crucial point is that this was sufficient to prevent exponential growth of transmission. It did not require a lockdown.”

Read the full piece here.