Read on Twitter
People claim that Sweden's liberal response has failed because it has more fatalities than its neighbours. But the purpose of the lockdown was to "flatten the curve" - ie, the same death rate, only spread out. Sweden *expects* a higher short-term spike, but also expects to cope.
If, when this is over, Sweden has fared no worse than the countries that immobilised their populations, it will be impossible to claim that "the lockdown saved us". Perhaps that explains Sweden is getting so much flack. https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/
We need to be on our guard against the sunk costs fallacy, currently expressed as "Don't let up now, or our sacrifices will have been in vain". If it turns out that a lighter touch might work almost as well, we should adjust our response accordingly. https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1251967620934443008?s=20
A key test for ending the lockdown, ministers say, is being confident that we are past the peak. It looks increasingly as if deaths peaked on 8 April, and infections were already falling when the lockdown was imposed last month. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-2th-april/
Good to see the BBC catching up with these numbers, and admitting that the infection rate was already falling when the lockdown began. Could it be that, beyond Swedish-style hygiene and distancing measures, tightening the screw further makes little difference?
