Another thing to consider wrt to Sweden:
If you look at the size and population densities of their cities and towns, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are actually pretty similar. When you consider the deaths not as a total, but as deaths per 1,000,000 or per 100,000 population, you can then get a better perspective for comparison (i.e. easier to compare deaths between countries with different population sizes, when you look at deaths/100,000).
The average size of the cities and towns in Sweden is similar to Denmark and Finland. Although calculating the population density in Finland per square mile or acre makes it appear that they have a lower population density, the population is mostly concentrated in cities and towns of similar size and with similar population densities to Sweden.
Sweden's deaths per 100,000 are 5x times higher, and they're still nowhere near herd immunity. In addition, their economy is getting hit hard because
a) when people realize that the infection and death rates are significantly high, they wind up self-isolating anyway, but only after a lot more deaths than the other countries experienced.
b) their economy has also taken a hit from the neighboring countries closing their borders to Sweden after seeing the results.
They've had many times the number of deaths per population, along with the hit to their economy (which was the reason they tried to let it 'burn through' while keeping everything open, thinking that it would preserve the economy).
Very early in the pandemic (I think I made the post in the Random Thoughts thread, before this thread was created), I expressed that specific opinion; yes, shutdowns will hurt the economy, but the economy will also take a hard hit if/when case counts and deaths start to scare people.
What the "No shutdowns!" crowd don't seem to understand, is that if you do NOTHING to mitigate a pandemic, once you reach a point where a LOT of people are getting sick and many have died/are dying, the economy tanks anyway, as people hide out of self-preservation.
The sad thing is, another point I've tried to make from early on, is that we could avoid shutdowns of most businesses while still mitigating the spread, if everyone wore masks/face coverings in public, but now people have made this a political issue.
That's why I've been pissed off at the talking heads from the moment they started the, "Masks won't protect you, don't buy them" idiocy.
A study of the pandemic in 198 countries has shown that the countries with the earliest, most widespread use of masks, have controlled/mitigated the spread the best.
N95s have been, and are still in short supply in most of these places. The vast majority of the people in those countries have either been using the paper procedural masks, or cloth masks. Do they provide 100% protection? No. Do they even provide anywhere near N95 protection? No. And yet, they've still demonstrated that if EVERYONE wears some kind of facial covering, the spread of this respiratory disease is hugely mitigated.
Arguing that non-N95 rated masks are useless is akin to saying that seatbelts and airbags are useless because numerous people still die from vehicular accidents every year despite seatbelts and airbags. They don't guarantee 100% protection, but they still greatly mitigate the chance of death and debilitation.
to believe other Countries will follow suit. It's now almost 3 months later and the mask wearing is going in the wrong direction in certain countries. It's gonna be a bumpy ride...
