Abstract Body

Introduction: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the literature on psychosocial stressors and psycho-social protective factors already clearly indicated that the two were linked in a multitude of ways to longevity. These ways include 1) directly through increased risk in suicides with respect to psycho-social stress or lack of connectivity 2) increased risk for psychopathologies such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and others, which in turn can decrease longevity in indirectly, and 3) a worse/healthier lifestyle that may be associated through decreased/improved social connectivity. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ways in which these psychosocial factors could be impacted by policy came into focus. Attempting to quantify the potential future impact of such policies on longevity through psycho-social changes appeared necessary to allow better guidance of policy making.

Objective: This presentation aims to leverage the experience gained from making a projection of the impact of pandemic mitigation strategies on longevity in the early advent of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results: The authors model indicated the high need for measures that are protective of the general populations’ psychosocial health in the face of a pandemic and associated mitigation strategies.

Discussion: This presentation will discuss issues concerning quantifications of the impact of COVID-19 related policy on psychosocial health. The assumptions necessary to arrive at projective models may be at odds with parts of the current culture in the field. The presentation will discuss potential strategies in order for the scientific community to be better prepared for similar events in the future.

Abstract Body

As COVID-19 spread, many countries in the world responded swiftly in an attempt to reduce transmission. Sweden, however, took a different approach to many other nations and did not implement a nationwide lockdown, instead deciding on a more “holistic approach to public health”. The focus was on minimising transmission as much as possible, protecting those in risk groups, ensuring that the response strategies were sustainable long-term, mitigating other health concerns as a result of the response and that evidence-based methods were used as much as possible. At this stage, it is difficult to know how exactly the Swedish strategy has fared in comparison to other responses. In Sweden, there has been much debate about the strategy, particularly concerning the protection of the elderly due to unexpectedly high mortality rates in the older population as well as among residents in retirement homes. Many ethical questions remain in regard to which strategies would have been preferable.