[alkonaut]

> That sort of communication leads to confusion, as the difference between a strategy that aims for herd immunity and one that will lead to herd immunity, at best is purely semantic.

I think it's a bit more than semantic at least. "use mitigations that are as effective as possible while still being sustainable in the long term". So long as healthcare isn't overwhelmed and R is kept under 1, these mitigations aren't leading to herd immunity because the outbreak is going to disappear before that, most likely.

If you accept an R on or over 1 then you are using a strategy that will lead to herd immunity.

[zosima]

Again I think we are getting into semantics, where there's no reason to not be clear.

If you make R < 1 you are in fact suppressing the disease. However slowly. If you are keeping R around 1 or above, you are mitigating.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172840/

Currently, it seems the disease is being suppressed in Sweden. I have no idea what Folkhälsomyndigheten or Anders Tegnell thinks about that.

[alkonaut]

Of course it’s being suppressed. R has been below 1 since what, mid-April? (Deaths and hospitalizations peaked on apr 24).