That paper could easily have been written about at least one COVID policy in every country on earth, but Sweden was singled out.
Not saying that there is no political nonsense going on related to the subject at hand. But this is (to a scientist in a different field) a well-authored article in a respectable journal. Thus I think it is a fair addition to a very complex debate that will likely continue among scientists long after the pandemic settles.
Edit: I may be wrong about the journal. Springer has a rather elaborate network of journals using their “brands” and it looks to me like this one is far from receiving the same level of editorial scrutiny that one would expect [1]. The hint may be “communications” in the name, possibly indicating that this is a more to be treated like a scientific opinion piece (still, far better than an op-ed) than anything else. It also appears to be in the area of humanities and social sciences rather than “pure” medicine for some reason; with a majority of the editorial board lacking relevant expertise [2]. Anyone more familiar with publishing in medicine, medical policy, etc. is more than welcome to chime in.
The hierarchy usually goes Nature, Nature Communications, Nature [field name] communications, then field specific nature-owned journals (which sometimes have higher status than the field specific communications journals)
More people died here and continue to die every week, yet our economy still took a big hit and important societal functions have still been harmed. In what way did we “get it right”?