To Swedes, it's the rest of the world engaging in a reckless experiment

I don't think that works. It only takes 10% of defectors to create a similar catastrophic result as with 50% defectors.

Human society has enacted laws for about four millenia and enforces them with threats and violence. That works to keep those who would otherwise only act in their own interests in check. There was no group of humans at the size of Sweden's population in existence where toothless rules like "be excellent to each other" and "use your best personal judgement" were enough to be workable.

The only normal country, entire planet is experiment.

It seems to me to be the obviously correct thing to do (at least insofar as having immediate testing of the hypothesis at large scale with volunteers) but it treads on multiple cultural taboos and will therefore never be part of the gated institutional narrative.

If we had wide-spread testing, we might be able to let some people know that they have recovered from exposure and are likely safe to return to a more normal life.

Most of us skepticals aren't arguing that we shouldn't do anything, but that we should gracefully allow citizens to adapt, and if necessary, then allow the government to adjust. This is what Sweden is doing, whereas most of the other countries were so convinced that what they were doing was right, they just outright declared it the law, not giving their citizens any chance to handle it by themselves.

And I believe this "nannying" is something that a whole fucking bunch of us, especially in the Western hemisphere, are pissed about, and we're looking and hoping for Sweden to get through this just how we believe would be correct course of action.

According to the article, ICU capacity is currently at a quarter. They could probably "afford" a higher rate, and be done with it faster.

Insisting on minimizing that number at all costs is insane. First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount of deaths over a larger timespan. Second, if you apply that logic consistently across every aspect of life, you'd have to ban cars too, they're far too dangerous and deadly. And smoking. And drinking. And the list just goes on. There are some who'd say yes to all three, but... oh boy, you must be fun at parties.

Look at the numbers in the US. No matter how it develops or has developed (we don't know the true infection ratio of the population, which is undoubtedly higher), there's no more containing it on a global scale. Our globalized and, at least for the privileged, largely open world with open borders would cease to exist, for there would be countries that insist on containing it, thus quarantining anyone entering, and therefore killing off all non-essential travel, like e.g. tourism. So, to keep that, you need to be immune... or a vaccine has to exist. But, it's also a gamble to be counting on a vaccine.