I do like the reliance on the high trust society in Sweden, but I also feel like a wider circle of experts could be consulted for such a decision. Even if it m

I do like the reliance on the high trust society in Sweden, but I also feel like a wider circle of experts could be consulted for such a decision. Even if it may not be a good model of human behavior, it's sometimes useful to consider "rational behavior" - if only to judge the resilience of certain mechanisms. In this case, "social" behavior is in a sense very altruistic. If I am young and healthy, recent media reports (accurate or not) would suggest that limiting myself to staying inside, practicing more hygiene and such, is costly but doesn't significantly reduce my own risk. At the same time, isolating risk-groups may not be sufficient, and younger people may genuinely be at risk. So, it would be desirable if everyone practices social isolation. If that is true, social behavior is a collective good: The more people stay inside, the easier it is for myself to go outside and, say, enjoy the sun in a park or have fun in a club. Thus, my incentives are not aligned with the goals of these recommendations. And if everyone thinks that way, social distancing will not be achieved in a "decentralized" fashion. Indeed if everyone is that rational, such a decentralized but workable "recommendation" does not exist. Now, I stress that people do not fit this model, especially in Sweden. But in situations of anonymity, e.g. with many people involved, it has sometimes proven useful to check the robustness of one's decisions against the case where people act rationally. In that case, laws and regulation do make sense.