From what I read 13 less serious cases were placed in a field hospital at Sahlgrenska as a "trial run" to test the facilities, but since there is available room at in the actual hospital (and people complained) this has now stopped.
There is still available intensive care space at ordinary hospitals and it looks like the number of people needing intensive care has stabilized [1]. The latest numbers are 1072 total intensive care units (not counting field hospitals) and 528 people treated for covid-19 in intensive care [2].
I don't really see why this suggests Sweden's approach should be emulated though. The reality is that we don't understand the conditions where COVID-19 thrives well enough yet to understand why some areas are hit so much harder than others.
We've seen hints that blood type, climate, average social distance, average obesity, average age, etc. But nothing definitive yet.
The costs to the economy from these lockdowns are trivial compared to the cost of a runaway and persistent viral hotspot like New York or Seattle, even if we pretend (as some folks here seem to insist we do) that the loss of life is not worth discussing.
What works in a given area population is great; but until you have some idea what your local R factors and hospitalization rates are, you really should play it safe.
We've seen hints that blood type, climate, average social distance, average obesity, average age, etc. But nothing definitive yet.
The costs to the economy from these lockdowns are trivial compared to the cost of a runaway and persistent viral hotspot like New York or Seattle, even if we pretend (as some folks here seem to insist we do) that the loss of life is not worth discussing.
What works in a given area population is great; but until you have some idea what your local R factors and hospitalization rates are, you really should play it safe.