[teejers1]

That is a bit of an ad hominem attack on the Times.  I mean, earlier I quoted a story where the Swedish Prime minister has ordered an inquiry into the handling of the virus.  And I've noted that even as Sweden's neighbors (Denmark, Norway, and Finland) open their borders to each other, they have kept their borders closed to Sweden due to the high ongoing COVID-19 rate.  Moreover, their stated goal, to develop herd immunity to the virus, appears not to have been achieved, so the purported benefit of the policy was not achieved.

That's not to sneer at Sweden.  The policy seems to have been unorthodox, but, as the Politico article notes, was made with due consideration to risks and benefits and was driven by Sweden's chief epidemiologist.  It appears to have been misguided, though as the Politico article makes clear, since the pandemic is by no means over, it is possible that over the long haul (next year), Sweden will have been proven correct, and other countries will face a recrudescence of the pandemic that will leave them in no better position than Sweden.  But there is also a possibility that other countries will manage to keep a lid on infections and deaths until a vaccine is widely available, and that when all is said and done, Sweden will be facing a substantially higher toll from COVID-19 than its neighbors.  I look forward to revisiting this once the pandemic is over to do an overall analysis of whether Sweden's response was a mistake or not.

BC

Agree that Sweden's response was based on its own priorities and that an evaluation of the success of that versus those pursued in other countries is best analyzed when all is said and done on the virus (including, if ever, a vaccine is widely available).  Having said that, I think it's fair to say, as Sweden's own experts have, that they did not handle the elderly population as well as they should/could have.  And that population still remains the driver in fatalities in all countries.

[teejers1]

That is a bit of an ad hominem attack on the Times.  I mean, earlier I quoted a story where the Swedish Prime minister has ordered an inquiry into the handling of the virus.  And I've noted that even as Sweden's neighbors (Denmark, Norway, and Finland) open their borders to each other, they have kept their borders closed to Sweden due to the high ongoing COVID-19 rate.  Moreover, their stated goal, to develop herd immunity to the virus, appears not to have been achieved, so the purported benefit of the policy was not achieved.

That's not to sneer at Sweden.  The policy seems to have been unorthodox, but, as the Politico article notes, was made with due consideration to risks and benefits and was driven by Sweden's chief epidemiologist.  It appears to have been misguided, though as the Politico article makes clear, since the pandemic is by no means over, it is possible that over the long haul (next year), Sweden will have been proven correct, and other countries will face a recrudescence of the pandemic that will leave them in no better position than Sweden.  But there is also a possibility that other countries will manage to keep a lid on infections and deaths until a vaccine is widely available, and that when all is said and done, Sweden will be facing a substantially higher toll from COVID-19 than its neighbors.  I look forward to revisiting this once the pandemic is over to do an overall analysis of whether Sweden's response was a mistake or not.

BC

Agree that Sweden's response was based on its own priorities and that an evaluation of the success of that versus those pursued in other countries is best analyzed when all is said and done on the virus (including, if ever, a vaccine is widely available).  Having said that, I think it's fair to say, as Sweden's own experts have, that they did not handle the elderly population as well as they should/could have.  And that population still remains the driver in fatalities in all countries.