But the virus is here to stay ... eventually it will most likely spread through Denmark, Norway and Finland too. If that happens at the end of next winter, they may have their deaths then. In short, we won't know how good or bad the Swedish response has been until a year or so from now.
And the main reason there is discussion of Sweden is that they did something that looked very risky but they have suffered far less than Italy and Spain who had strict lockdowns for 6 and 8 weeks. The secondary effect of this pandemic is going to be the terrible poverty visited upon people who have lost their jobs.... see the USA. In this respect, Sweden may turn out not to suffer as badly (although they will be hit hard by an American recession). Congrats on your Swedish genes anyway. And I don't think any nation will be in a position to have their response "bigged up" a year from now.
Sorry, bit of a late reply to this, and sorry to dig it up....
The virus could be here to stay, it could be here forever without a cure or vaccine, but if you get it controlled at any one point, and have a sufficient testing regime set up, then it can be tested, tracked and traced into insignificance, like loads of tiny ripples in a pond, compared to a tsunami or big waves in the sea. Multiple mini breakouts of 10 deaths per week is going to be better than 100 deaths per day, forever. If a vaccine comes, great, if not, then lock down till it's controlled enough where testing, tracking and tracing can work (like they always do in Asia). If the virus "gets out" like we abandoned test, track and trace, then it's impossible to ever have enough testing, tracking and tracing to ever work, as there would be a million infected paths crossing each other.
You seem to forget that an Economy which has full testing, tracking and tracing in place, can pretty much operate at 90-100%. There's no way Sweden can operate at 90-100% at 100 deaths per day, they will be lucky to be at 50% and they're going to be stuck on that until there's a vaccine.
Lock down scenario: Two months at 25% then 10 months at 90% is going to average = about 80% over a year
Non "official" lock down scenario: 12 months at 50% is going to average out at 50% over a year
Sweden might have suffered less, for now, as their population is lesser and they had a lower initial infection, neither which they can be praised for. But they haven't done better than Italy or Spain, as each of those had far less notice and an obviously much larger initial infection that they knew little about. As soon as they did know about it they started a recovery lock-down plan, and Spain's recovery has been phenomenal considering the direction their curve was going (steeper than anywhere). If you compare the deaths per day graph, Sweden will cross the path of Spain in about 3-4 weeks time, by the looks of it, which is shocking for Sweden. Especially when Sweden had 2-3 weeks notice, a lesser initial infection and a population about 1/5th of Spain.
Saying Sweden is doing a good job is like us being in a situation where we peaked at 600 deaths per day, and are still on that peak, but with no sign of it reducing, it would be a disgrace (like how everyone's saying the USA is a disgrace). What we have done had a higher peak (which is 100% crap), but at least there's now sustained reduction and some sort of testing and tracing seems to be getting organised. We should have locked down earlier and had a lower peak and a quicker recovery.
Sweden's curve is similar to the USA, except not as advanced. They have both got to a peak which is ridiculous for the amount of population near an infection, neither show any sign of a good, quick recovery. If you're not recovering, and testing greatly, then you're at exceptional risk to another massive breakout.
