Available evidence (which is scant) seems to indicate that Sweden is enjoying no better economic circumstances but much worse health outcomes compared to its neighbors.
Which is difficult to gauge, since Sweden's economy depends on exporting to other countries that are in a full lockdown. So it's possible that if all countries took Sweden's approach, things would be a lot better.
So far, they have double the fatality rate of LA county.
This is totally fair, however the reason everyone in the US were told to stay home was to flatten the curve to not overwhelm hospitals, and to buy time. That has been done. Hospitals are no where near capacity and new case counts are falling week over week. We have a lot of testing now, a lot of ventilators, a lot more PPE. We are better prepared now. Now the new thing seems to be for stay at home orders to exist so that we have no cases at all. That's not realistic. Politicians need to wake up to the reality that this can't go on. Even if our best case scenario is to avoid all the death we can...it's just not feasible. Not economically, morally, etc. The only real choice is a mixed policy that just have strict guidelines for businesses serving customers. It's the only way.
> The only real choice is a mixed policy that just have strict guidelines for businesses serving customers.
How is this different from what the article proposes?
This is expected. Their curve will peak much earlier, but there is no reason to expect the area under the curve(deaths) for LA will be much different than Sweden.
I think we are all going to get to the same fatality rate but at different speeds. The lockdown is only going to delay the inevitable unless we get a treatment or vaccine.
Guess if "better" means a worse deaths-per-million stat than even the US.