[claudeganon]

>I would consider it the danger of lockdown.

You would be objectively wrong? Basic reasoning would tell you that places with less cases have a lower probability of transmitting the disease to animal reservoirs and risking harmful mutations coming back at us.

>With zero response - ie. what we do for influenza - we establish herd immunity over a short, sharp period, and the virus immediately falls over.

This is also incorrect? We take a number of proactive actions against the flu every year, from vaccination, to other public health and treatment measures, to even more drastic steps like culling livestock populations where more dangerous strains have emerged.

>So it makes sense to adopt the Swedish approach now, for a variant of the virus we know how to treat.

We don't actually have any idea about the consequences of this mutation, especially in a larger population, so we should do the exact opposite and proceed with extreme caution until its risk profile is understood.