Their care homes and elderly took the brunt of the virus. However this is also the case in a lot of counties that did in fact implement an official lockdown. Sweden did implement some measures, but it was more of a light touch approach- for example gatherings of over 50 were outright banned, but masks and social distancing were only encouraged rather than enforced. There seems anecdotally to have been greater adherence to these measures over there than here in the UK though.
Sweden spared European surge as coronavirus infections stay low
Chief epidemiologist puts low number of cases down to light-touch ‘sustainable’ approachwww.theguardian.com
If they get through the winter months they will have done exceptionally well. Rightly or wrongly they accepted up front that lockdowns were a very drastic and perhaps unsustainable measure to put in place. They also accepted the science that the IFR rate for people under a certain age and in good health is incredibly minuscule. Those factors have dictated their policies and response.
Of course it is. Because, by and large, the people who get impacted by this horrid thing the most are the vulnerable and elderly.
Now, that is not me saying we should not do everything we can to protect those groups. In March, that meant lockdown. In shouldn't mean full lockdown as being the only option six months later though, surely?
