[klingonopera]

> "This is incorrect. You're reducing the number of deaths. Think of it like this: imagine 2% of people need ICU care. 100% of those that don't get ICU care die."

Quoting my earlier reply: "According to the article, ICU capacity is currently at a quarter. They could probably "afford" a higher rate, and be done with it faster."

I'm obviously aware of that. Now we're just arguing how high the numbers are, but we agree that they exist. You're arguing Sweden will have numbers so high, they will be overwhelmed. I believe the infected number is significantly higher than measured, and we're about 1/3rds of peak, so Sweden, in my opinion, will peak at about 75% ICU capacity.

My second point still stands.

EDIT: Or, to apply reductio ad absurdum to your argument, if we go all the way and attempt to minimize that number to the extreme, we could be facing a lockdown lasting years and have ICU capacity barely scratch 1% above nominal (on the contrary - it would decrease, as reduced societal activity initially incurs less deaths/ICU cases from e.g. accidents).