Final answer:
Australia and New Zealand implemented strict border controls and lockdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19, aiming for virus elimination. Sweden, in contrast, took a more relaxed approach, without strict enforcement of distancing and mask-wearing, which likely led to higher death rates.
Step-by-step explanation:
Differences in COVID-19 Management: Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden
In contrast to the global pandemic response, the way Australia and New Zealand handled the coronavirus differed significantly from Sweden's approach. Australia and New Zealand were known for their strict border controls and lockdowns, completely shutting down at the discovery of just a few cases to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This included enforcing quarantine measures for incoming travelers and implementing swift lockdowns with the occurrence of new infections.
On the other hand, Sweden adopted a more relaxed approach. The Swedish government refused to take measures to enforce distancing and face mask guidelines adopted by most countries. Instead, they relied on recommendations rather than mandates, which likely contributed to elevated death rates compared to countries that implemented more stringent measures.
Efforts in Australia and New Zealand focused on elimination, aiming to completely eradicate the virus within their borders, whereas Sweden operated under the assumption that the virus could not be contained outright and focused more on achieving herd immunity with minimal disruption to daily life.