It is my understanding that any government going a non-isolation route is going after the bigger picture: less of an economic impact, fewer psychological effect

It is my understanding that any government going a non-isolation route is going after the bigger picture: less of an economic impact, fewer psychological effects on the population, all leading to fewer lives lost. While this approach leads to bigger numbers of deaths directly caused by the pandemic, actual effects can only be measured further down the line (say in five years). And we still haven't seen any numbers to compare mortality rates due to all causes since the pandemic started (i.e. due to focus on covid, how many other serious diseases are left untreated? how many of the covid death cases were likely to pass away from getting any other common infection like influenza?...) I am not saying that Sweden's approach is favourable, but that it's a risky move that has the potential to be better in the long run and when looking at the big picture (i.e. what's the total number of deaths in Sweden in 2020 and how does it compare to previous years?). But to call it terrible is making judgement too early. I fully understand that someone having their loved ones in a nursing home is frustrated with their government not doing anything when such an obvious risk is present, and that most people don't have the means to do what they feel is right (eg pull their loved ones out and provide dedicated care for them), but at the same time, I feel for thousands of those who've been confined to die alone for having but a cough. It's a tricky time, and only hindsight will be 20/20.