Talk:Anders Tegnell

Tegnell and the Swedish COVID-19 strategy

This biography has a lot of focus on the COVID-19 response and the debate around it, giving the impression that the article is used largely as a place to dump criticism of the Swedish way of dealing with the pandemic. However, while Tegnell is state epidemiologist, he isn't the Public Health Agency of Sweden, which makes these decisions, nor does he lead it. As the state epidemiologist, he is of course tasked with defending the decisions made by the agency, but having the debate about these decisions in his biography gives the impression that they're about his decisions. It doesn't belong here. This should be about Tegnell, not about the public opinion about the decisions of the agency he works for. /Julle (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Tegnell's not responsible? Show us then, with links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs)

'Became a licensed physician'

Currently it states that "He became a licensed physician at Lund University in 1985, subsequently interning at the county hospital in Östersund" — I'm not sure what that 'licensing' refers to, exactly. Usually one graduates from medical school, followed by an internship, and then gets licensed to practice medicine independently. Hence I've rephrased that to read that he "studied medicine" at Lund; should serve the same purpose, while avoiding the ambiguity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Education

Would be nice to have his education / degrees listed. Is this PDF a good enough source? https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/aboutus/governance/af/Documents/Curriculum%20vitae%20-%20Anders%20Tegnell.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badrange (talk • contribs) 09:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Political POV

This article has a very specific political point of view. It should have a template message on top to inform the reader about this, until it is written in a more neutral perspective. –PJ (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

2009 epidemic

This removal of a relevant and well-sourced section sentence is hard to comprehend as constructive. Somebody is going to have to explain here why it it not relevant and well sourced or else it should be reinstated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my edit. It was not a section, but one sentence of a paragraph sourced to a WP:PRIMARY source. The removal had nothing to do with it not being well sourced, as you can read in my edit comment. This sentence was WP:UNDUE since AFAIK that article has not been prominently discussed in printed, reliable sources. It was WP:SYNTH to include it in a section about criticism of Tegnell, since placing it together with the information about narcolepsy implies incompetence. Sjö (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I think I understand. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)