Sweden was not going for maximal herd immunity - they still have had various restrictions, just to a lesser extent than other nations. Their strategy was more t

Sweden was not going for maximal herd immunity - they still have had various restrictions, just to a lesser extent than other nations. Their strategy was more to focus on what seemed like it would be materially beneficial, rather than just marginally beneficial. Why do you think their strategy failed? I see this take all the time from those who are pro-lockdowns/mandates, and I also know that Sweden are themselves revisiting their restrictions and tuning them to be more strict. But ultimately an opinion about whether these policies are good or not is about one's personal values. This is more about what tradeoffs we are willing to make - which risks and outcomes are you going to accept in return for the benefits? For me, given the overall infection fatality rate is very low still (~0.68%), I am OK with those scared of the virus staying home and self-isolating as strictly as they want, while others go about their lives to whatever extent they choose. After all, life always contains risks. I also want to add that there's a lot Sweden got right (https://fee.org/articles/5-charts-that-show-sweden-s-strategy-worked-the-lockdowns-failed/ https://fee.org/articles/5-charts-that-show-sweden-s-strateg...). Sweden also had a big spike of fatalities early on from nursing homes, and as I recall nursing homes alone account for more than half of Sweden's deaths. Without that blunder, they would be looking much better in terms of COVID-caused deaths. But even those early incidents, have to be taken in terms of the number of quality life years lost rather than just the number of deaths. After all, a person dying of COVID in their 70s is not as tragic as someone young dying. This is the same consideration we take on in assessing medical interventions more generally, and it would be irrational not to consider that here.