Perhaps the Swedish approach is the correct one - from the BBC:
"Anders Tegnell, Sweden's chief state epidemiologist, believes his country's decision not to impose strict lockdown measures has "worked in some aspects because our health system has been able to cope".
Sweden's approach has been controversial. It has seen more infections and deaths than its Nordic neighbours, with 2,021 deaths and 16,755 cases
.
But Dr Tegnell has told the BBC that at least half the deaths have been in nursing homes and "it's a bit unclear to us if a lockdown would have stopped this from happening or not". He also argued that the decision not to impose strict restrictions meant that there was an immunity level of up to 20% in the capital, Stockholm, "so we hope this will make it easier for us in the long run"."
- the point is that the strategy concentrated on preventing the Swedish health service from being overwhelmed, rather than in saving lives.
Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum