For this reason alone, we are unlikely to know the effectiveness of Sweden's herd immunity for months if not years.
We don't know. Covid19 leaves some people with long-term, perhaps permanent damage. You might lose working-age tax-paying people from workforce, having to pay them disability allowance, and this might offset part or all of your savings in pensions.
The epidemic is already over in Sweden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden#De...
(more up to date graph: https://lockdownsceptics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/IMG_...)
Yet a much lower level of infected population than conventionally understood has been reached. The models that assume the virus will continue to grow until 60%-70% have been infected are therefore wrong, reality itself is proving that.
There are now a whole lot of theories being explored as to why this is.
[edit: someone complained about the original graph link not matching worldometers. It's worldometers that's wrong so I replaced it with a Wikipedia link, which sources its data direct from Swedish health authorities. I left the lockdownsceptics link because it's a bit fresher]
Sweden (or any other country to be honest) is nowhere near herd immunity, which kicks in at 60% (though some studies seem to have pointed to a lower number around 45%/47% something like that, anyway), Stockholm I think is around 10%, maybe 15%
And even when you reach 60%, there's still an infection inertia
I think it's fine for Sweden to have tried their approach, at these times, there are no real right or wrong answers, and Sweden's population probably is a little more sensible than most other countries.
Other than geometric tidiness I see no point in your comment.
In fact, it ignores the denial of service impact that an epidemic has on a national health service, and plays down how it advocates for a population culling.
Perhaps it's time to relearn the basic principles and merits of "flattening the curve", not to mention the benefits of gaining some time until a vaccine is developed.