Don't compare countries, compare cities/regions. The Stockholm area is hard hit but e.g. the Malmö area fared much better. This isn't because of a difference in strategt but because the initial outbreak was smaller and later, so they had time to take action sooner. When Stockholm realized the problems in elderly homes, many of them already had the disease.
> I'd say it's safe to assume that at least 80% of Swedish deaths could have been avoided with a conventional approach.
What do you build that assumption on? Comparison to other countries, thinking "they have 1/4 the deaths and strategy X so if Sweden had strategy X they would have 1/4 the deaths"?
Half of the deaths were in elderly homes, and they could perhaps have been avoided with a different approach. That's the big failure. Old people who don't have care in their homes or live in elderly homes (e.g. retired healthy people) have been in full "lockdown" just like in most other countries.
The cases per capita in Stockholm are about the same as in most other counties with more than a handful of inhabitants, there are so many cases in Stockholm because many people live there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden#Ad...
The same is true for Norway, with Oslo leading the list and also having the most inhabitants. So there is no difference here between the countries.
> I'd say it's safe to assume that at least 80% of Swedish deaths could have been avoided with a conventional approach.
What do you build that assumption on? Comparison to other countries, thinking "they have 1/4 the deaths and strategy X so if Sweden had strategy X they would have 1/4 the deaths"?
Half of the deaths were in elderly homes, and they could perhaps have been avoided with a different approach. That's the big failure. Old people who don't have care in their homes or live in elderly homes (e.g. retired healthy people) have been in full "lockdown" just like in most other countries.