The Swedish Strategy can be summed up as: protect the vulnerable, let non-vulnerable to socialize by keeping schools, restaurants and bars open. 1/13. https://twitter.com/federicolois/status/1298631595339980806

This makes sense. We know since March that infection fatality rate (IFR) is between 2 and 3 orders of magnitude lower for age groups below 60yo. (The Non-Vulnerable). 2/13 https://twitter.com/federicolois/status/1297025457595060226

Sweden needed 600 ICUs in the peak and has converged to a 600 per million population fatality which is a full 1 order of magnitude less than what was predicted by early (and poorly calibrated) models from Imperial and IHME. 3/12 https://twitter.com/HaraldofW/status/1275343105449918465

Even if some are willing to admit that the Swedish strategy was generally pretty successful, all of the sudden arguments come up on why you couldn't do that in country X, and why Sweden is so different. 4/13

The general argument is "demographics are unique”. The Swedish have less multi-generational households than many other countries, especially third-world countries. This is a fact, Sweden has <= 1% multi-generational households. 5/13

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3433488/5579620/KS-SF-11-052-EN.PDF/9a190f6f-8949-4d3d-99ad-989479c6b23b

By multi-generational households usually one means younger and older people living together, that is, Vulnerable (>=60) and Non-vulnerable (<60) cohabitating. 6/13

The narrative goes: Sweden could "afford" its strategy because non-vulnerables would mix less with vulnerables. This looks plausible and has not really received much challenge so far. 7/13.

However, if you go for general lockdowns, you also stop Non-vulnerables from contributing to community immunity. Lockdowns are not perfect and community spread is common as we have seen notably in Latin America. 7/13 https://twitter.com/federicolois/status/1298631459218034688

What would have happened if other countries had decided to emulate “The Swedish Way”? How do countries compare in terms of non-vulnerable households? Then it's fair to ask: How many *non-vulnerable households* (without members of 60+ yo)? How does this compare to SWE? 8/13.

In 2019, Sweden had 60% households with no vulnerable members (<60, source: SCB, Sweden, e-mail communication). 9/13

And other countries? India: 74%, Brazil: 73%, Argentina, Colombia and USA 66% just to name a few. Since younger households tend to be bigger, we can infer that at least 70% of the population lives separately from the vulnerable population. 10/13.

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/household_size_and_composition_around_the_world_2017_data_booklet.pdf

Multigenerational households are by this definition "vulnerable" because they have at least one member in the vulnerable class. 11/13

Multigenerational households SHOULD be considered vulnerable and take special precautions. But, judging by the isolation capability vulnerables from non-vulnerables, many countries are in an even better position than Sweden. 12/13

If they can, and it may be counterproductive to do so, the question that begs to be asked is: Why isolate everybody then?

Thanks to @federicolois, @HaraldofW, @gummibear737 and @Akustronique for valuable discussions on this topic. 13/13