Yes I read an article about Sweden's similar response and the reason it seems to be working is 1) the people actually trust the government so they take the restrictions seriously and follow them (unlike here where we have more serious restrictions but 50%ish don't take it seriously [hoax, just the flu, who cares if old people die etc]), and 2) very few people travel to Sweden in the winter so not near the level of virus introduction into the country.
I realize you're not in Sweden but probably the factors are similar. Makes sense.
"The facts speak for themselves."
I'm suspicious of anyone who says this because it's about to be followed by a cherry-picked subset designed to prove his point of view [confirmation bias] and ignoring anything contrary.
I'm more of a "do your own research and come to your own conclusions" type.
However, there's nothing wrong with presenting one's data, logic, and assumptions, coming to a conclusion and offering "where are the flaws in my argument?".
So here's my take: I don't focus on absolute #s because population sizes are so different. According to worldometers [
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/], China and Iran have roughly the same # of cases [whether either set of #s are believable is another matter]. But China has way more people so you have to baseline that per capita so you can make an apples-to-apples comparison. Many news outlets can't grasp this simple concept.
So if you compare deaths per million people among Sweden, Finland, and Norway, 3 countries with similar genetic stock, culture, and climate, you come up with
Country deaths per million
Sweden 150
Norway 30
Finland 16
If I was typical, I'd stop here and claim this proves that Sweden's policy is a complete failure.
Where could the flaws in this comparison be?
- Maybe Sweden is using a more comprehensive definition or attributing deaths to CV more aggressively than the other 2
- Maybe Norway and Finland are doing the opposite
- Maybe there were a few hot spots that skewed Sweden's #s
So it's hard to know for certain how to interpret the data. One tries to take factors into account and then one makes a decision based on that.
I happen to think Sweden's policy IS a major factor in why their #s are worse but I'm sure some really smart people who actually know epidemiology could make a credible counter-argument.
"You pays your money, you takes your chances."