They're wrong, but that's what they're saying.
They closed schools and public buildings. They didn't force people to stay at home. They didn't stop people travelling, or force them to wear masks. They treated their populations as humans. Their responses were a lot closer to Sweden than to most European countries "lockdown" responses.
And did you know that for whatever reason, Finland has 5 times more flu deaths per capita than Sweden on a normal year.
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/influenza...
You will also notice the the two countries where masks are apparently the norm, South Korea and Japan have relatively high rates of flu death for developed countries. That implies that the masks don't help.
To use Sweden as an example of lockdown being effective is grasping at straws.
Where is the spike after Texas opened up a month ago? Why is Florida doing better than California, despite an older population?
That's not to say lockdowns aren't effective, but the data doesn't seem to fit any neat narrative at the moment.
Considering the massive amounts of suffering these policies are causing, there ought to be a bit of reflection on how effective they are. We have a years worth of data now, and as I pointed out, there seems to be no correlation. There seems to be no consideration of the side effects and harms caused.
Assuming the approach of locking people up works, without taking into account the new data as it comes in is not science. It is faith.
There exist a direct correlation between not locking down (or waiting) and the number of infections and deaths: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81869-2