[2006alum]

I didn't take a position.

I guess I misread what I understood to be your proposed "possibility of a nuance approach" based on the Swedish approach:

Sweden famously did NOT impose the complete lockdown that most European nations did. So how is it faring? This article suggests that the policy worked out tolerably well . . . it does raise with me the possibility that a nuance approach - lockdown for the infirm, strict social distancing guidelines for others, rather than complete lockdown. 

What I was reacting to is that from everything I have read, Sweden seems to be regarded as one of the largely failed approaches, and is therefore *not* the model we should be looking to for guidance. So allusions to the "possibility" of Sweden as a potential model are, to me, not based in a complete picture of the facts, especially when there are sources less than three weeks old that make this point somewhat abundantly clear, such as this one, published on Friday:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1276373422222827520?s=20[/tweet]

As a result, many European countries now opening up to tourism have barred Swedes from entry until 30 June, while to its considerable annoyance the county’s neighbours have also excluded it from a Nordic travel bubble.

So to recap, the "Swedish experience" is: vastly higher deaths, no near-term prospect of herd immunity, frayed relations and travel bans from its neighbors, falling popular support, and negligible economic benefit relative to those who locked down. Given all this, it's just not clear to me why you'd credibly raise Sweden as an approach we should consider following. (And I say this recognizing that we in the U.S. are following a non-approach "approach" that is rudderless, incoherent, at war with itself, and vastly worse on nearly every measurable metric...)

[2006alum]

I didn't take a position.

I guess I misread what I understood to be your proposed "possibility of a nuance approach" based on the Swedish approach:

Sweden famously did NOT impose the complete lockdown that most European nations did. So how is it faring? This article suggests that the policy worked out tolerably well . . . it does raise with me the possibility that a nuance approach - lockdown for the infirm, strict social distancing guidelines for others, rather than complete lockdown. 

What I was reacting to is that from everything I have read, Sweden seems to be regarded as one of the largely failed approaches, and is therefore *not* the model we should be looking to for guidance. So allusions to the "possibility" of Sweden as a potential model are, to me, not based in a complete picture of the facts, especially when there are sources less than three weeks old that make this point somewhat abundantly clear, such as this one, published on Friday:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1276373422222827520?s=20[/tweet]

As a result, many European countries now opening up to tourism have barred Swedes from entry until 30 June, while to its considerable annoyance the county’s neighbours have also excluded it from a Nordic travel bubble.

So to recap, the "Swedish experience" is: vastly higher deaths, no near-term prospect of herd immunity, frayed relations and travel bans from its neighbors, falling popular support, and negligible economic benefit relative to those who locked down. Given all this, it's just not clear to me why you'd credibly raise Sweden as an approach we should consider following. (And I say this recognizing that we in the U.S. are following a non-approach "approach" that is rudderless, incoherent, at war with itself, and vastly worse on nearly every measurable metric...)