The guy is a scientist and his answers have to be viewed from that angle. A politician goes for spin and tries to project confidence; "I am not sure this is the right approach" from a politician usually means "hell, no!". Tegnell's answer means just that -- he is not sure. Which is a normal way for a scientist to feel as there are always uncertainties and when we choose an action we are often not sure for a while if that action is optimal or not.
I personally feel a lot of respect to Tegnell. Sweden might have taken a better or a worse approach than, say, France but it is clearly not catastrophic: there are no mountains of corpses on the streets there are a number of countries with lockdowns and worse per capita death rates; second wave, if appears, will likely go much easier on Sweden, etc.
I think other countries should take a page out of Tegnell's book and instead of trying to exorcise dissent and label opponents, admit to uncertainties in their policies. This will not make their argument weaker; it might still mean that lockdowns are a better option. But it would also open policies for discussion and debate. Good policies will still win. But then they win by merits, not because of trying to silence any opposition. My 2c.
I personally feel a lot of respect to Tegnell. Sweden might have taken a better or a worse approach than, say, France but it is clearly not catastrophic: there are no mountains of corpses on the streets there are a number of countries with lockdowns and worse per capita death rates; second wave, if appears, will likely go much easier on Sweden, etc.
I think other countries should take a page out of Tegnell's book and instead of trying to exorcise dissent and label opponents, admit to uncertainties in their policies. This will not make their argument weaker; it might still mean that lockdowns are a better option. But it would also open policies for discussion and debate. Good policies will still win. But then they win by merits, not because of trying to silence any opposition. My 2c.