Also, the medical approach to people getting sick with COVID-19 has significantly improved over the first month (e.g., early hospitalisation instead of sending a sick person to isolate themselves at home, weeding out drugs that did not work from those that worked, introduction of drugs to control trombosis and secondary damage from the virus, better approaches to when and how use ventilators, etc.).
That means that a number of the deaths that have occurred within the Swedish policy could have been avoided by delaying the infection. More importantly, Sweden's approach has not even achieved a significant level of immunity, as Swedes have been self-imposing social distancing and even a 'lockdown' (working from home).
In an interview in "unherd", Giesecke estimated that the deaths in UK without lockdown would be in the 12,000 (when they where 13,000), then corrected himself to 24,000 (they are almost 40,000 now), and then said they will not be 10x 12,000.
On freedom. The lockdown for reasons of public health is a limitation of our freedom that has been accepted (except in Sweden) by their citizens in their respective contracts as a society (constitutions, laws, etc.). So, per se, it's a limitation akin to not driving over a certain speed in certain roads. Moreover, many people (and students) have reported that the lockdown has been "liberating" - and for others have been depressing (it never rains to everyone's liking)
On ending the lockdown. Tegnell and Giesecke repeat and repeat and repeat that countries imposed a lockdown without a strategy out. Well that's just dire false. When the lockdown was being discussed, the press was already pointing that issue and several strategies were being considered (press from March already discusses the measure by measure approach).
But, whereas other countries are looking conservatively with the evidence (that could be flawed because it is small and incomplete) that they already have, Sweden is relying in an evidence that will only be apparent in the future (if the events turn out to be advantageous for that approach).
If each country had been given an "ant population" with some infected individuals and their epidemiologists needed to manage the epidemic long term while a cure for the ant's illness is found, maybe, the Sweden's approach would have made more sense... At least, most people wouldn't have had much feelings for those ants that could have lived a couple of days longer.