That is, if you want to give them credit for any strategy at all. And no, the curve is not the same as everywhere [0]. Being a resident Swede, my lasting impre

That is, if you want to give them credit for any strategy at all. And no, the curve is not the same as everywhere [0]. Being a resident Swede, my lasting impression is that the so-called "strategy" has two legs (can be backed by a long list of official statements) 1: hope that the virus does not hit, and if it does, that it is not necessary to do anything and/or it is already too late anyway and that hopefully it will disappear through herd immunity. A hope that has been expressed up to twice weekly for the last 2 months or so, while the number of deaths go up and up. And 2: in a manner typical of governmental agencies everywhere: never ever admit to any mistake or error in judgement. Like admitting that the recommendation for the public not to use face masks was wrong, and was brought on by secondary concerns (over availability in hospitals). Even now (as of yesterday) the official stance is that using face masks might increase risks and efficacy is not backed by "scientific proof". The paper should probably be seen in this light. The main author of the paper Tom Britton forms together with Giesecke and Tegnell the "herd immunity" triumvirate that is responsible for the Swedish mess that currently renders Sweden a place among the top 10 countries with most fatalities per million. At the face of it this paper just seems to confirm that protective measures actually work. But by shining the light the herd immunity aspect of the equation he makes it sound like they were right all along. [0] https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare?val=d&align100=1&pop=1&c=se,fi,no,tw,us https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare?val=d&align100=1&pop=1&c=...