Sweden didn't lockdown, they seem fine.
Once again, total fukking ignorance. Sweden's own king said that their response to Covid was a failure.
“The people of Sweden have suffered tremendously in difficult conditions,” King Carl XVI Gustaf told the state broadcaster, SVT, in an end-of-year interview. “I think we have failed. We have a large number who have died, and that is terrible.”
King of Sweden blasts country's 'failed' coronavirus response
While Sweden didn't lockdown the same way many countries did, they still did lots of social distancing, closed several major factories, encouraged everyone to work from home, banned large gatherings, seriously reduced travel and vacationing, and closed high schools and colleges. They had the advantage that they have extremely low population density, 50% of people live alone, and more than 20% already worked from home even before the pandemic began.
So did they do fine? Well, take a look at this map:
Sweden is right between Norway and Finland. All three countries have pretty much the same climate, same population density, same level of urbanization, same strength of health care system, and same demographics. Norway and Finland did normal lockdowns. Sweden did a light lockdown. How'd it work out?
Norway: 116 deaths/million
Sweden:
1,280 deaths/million
Finland: 138 deaths/million
Sweden had about TEN TIMES the death rate of its neighbors. Despite all its advantages, TEN TIMES as many people died. And that's your example of great policy?
Same thing happened here. Why do you think South Dakota had 2,143 deaths/million while Oregon only had 542 deaths/million? They have similar population density (Oregon is actually denser), similar climate, and similar demographics. Oregon is actually more urbanized - there ain't nowhere in South Dakota nearly as urbanized as Portland. And yet South Dakota's death rate is 4x higher. You want to guess which one of the two was strict about lockdowns and which one wasn't?