so, are they peaking in sweden, then?

it looks like it...

and, that's what? around 3000 deaths? plus or minus?

if it burns out to a trickle over the next few days, there's not going to be any choice but to conclude they've reached something approaching functional immunity, at least in the active population, which could have the effect of largely burning it out, even if they still have to deal with small scale outbreaks for the next forever, like everybody else.

but, what is the damage?

if we calculate 3299 deaths in total out of a population of 10,501,043, that's .031415926% - which proves that this was the optimal strategy, after all.

at a herd immunity of 66.6%, which we have no idea is true or not, 10501043*.666*x = 3299 <---> x = .047%. so, that is your true death rate, which is equivalent to the flu.

no, stop - this is empirical. this is the best data we have. but, it does seem a little low....

the other hypothesis is that maybe herd immunity doesn't require two thirds of the population, but something less than that, and maybe the antibody data coming out of new york and elsewhere is grounds for that, as well.

so, what if herd immunity is actually achieved by this disease at 50% exposure? then the death rate becomes .063% - not a big jump.

what if it's 33%? then you're still barely getting at the .1% that i've been lowballing at.

but, let's get the point - the experiment in sweden seems to be winding down, and while the swedes themselves might be disappointed that it got into the old folks' homes (a problem that exists everywhere.), the data we're getting out of it is lowballing the lowballs.

you'd have to struggle to pull a .1% death rate out of these numbers.