Here's what gets me about so so so many people and their response to the Swedish pandemic failure.

This is literally true ....

Sweden: We want the virus to spread
Norway: We want to stop the virus spreading

And then people are wondering why more people died in Sweden?

Was it immigrants? Population density? Age structure? Poor aged care? Timing of holidays? "Dry tinder" etc etc etc etc

There's a new freaking excuse every week or two.

Here, again, is the Deputy Chief Epidemiologist of Sweden

"The disadvantage of a complete lockdown is that there is not so much spread of infection ..."

Get that? Low spread of the virus is a *disadvantage*. https://twitter.com/DavidSteadson/status/1343120955388932096?s=20

Chief Epidemiologist Tegnell is on public record saying we don't want the spread virus to spread "more than necessary" - ie there's a necessary amount of spread. https://twitter.com/DavidSteadson/status/1323664105258029056?s=20

Former Chief Epidemiologist (and paid consultant to Tegnell) Johan Giesecke is on record saying we need to let the virus spread and advising other countries to do the same.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/let-virus-spread-among-under-60s-dail-committee-told-1018721.html

NONE OF THIS IS A SECRET.

Sweden's strategy includes letting the virus spread.

Do you think, just MAYBE, letting the virus spread leads to more people being infected?

And that just MAYBE it's possible that more people being infected by a deadly disease leads to more people dying?

Is that maybe a plausible explanation for Sweden's death toll?

Maybe?