Sweden didn't deter people from going to the hospitals. That's what happened in places like the UK, where the government literally told people to "protect the N

Sweden didn't deter people from going to the hospitals. That's what happened in places like the UK, where the government literally told people to "protect the NHS", and the UK has consequently had one of the highest death rates in Europe. but Swedden still had much more people killed than their twin country Norway. So what? Zero deaths was not ever a goal of lockdowns, and cannot have been because there's no logical way to get from that policy to that outcome. You've done what lockdown advocates always do when Sweden comes up: not just shift the goalposts but move them entirely out of the field. At any rate, Norway may simply have not had the disease spread through the population yet, or they may have just got lucky - seasonal flu always hits some countries and not others for unexplained reasons. It doesn't ultimately matter. Sweden disproved epidemiological models, and thus the actions taken on their basis were not justified. As for physicians, luckily the opinion of a doctor here or there is not sufficient to change actual data or observed reality. Fortunately most doctors are sensible: there are plenty who have been outspoken against lockdown precisely because it emptied the hospitals and clinics leaving them with a huge backlog of patients who they could have saved but now cannot.