But is that a bad thing? It's unlikely there is going to be a vaccine in the next year. What happens with their neighbours next winter? The virus isn't simply just going to go away. It's way too early to be critical of Sweden's strategy based on the death rate during the first wave. In a year or two from now, things might and very possibly will, look very different. There is every chance, that as long as your health system hasn't been swamped, to the extent that care is rationed based on age etc, that the countries with the most infections per capita, have actually done the best. And I know that's not what a lot of people want to hear as it's become so political. But without a vaccine, would you rather be in Sweden or Denmark next winter?
This is why I really think we should use football as an example of how to go forward and start playing again with, crowds and without social distancing. I think the key is to limit the participants and fans, based on age and health status. If we'd left our schools open, there is a good chance 75% of our kids would be immune, the same is true for Uni's. Pubs, football stadium, restaurants, schools etc, all need to open up and as many young, healthy, people as possible need to be exposed to the virus. The data shows us the NHS should be able to cope over the summer and the benefits, come the winter, will be dramatic. Football clubs and footballers should lead the way, by campaigning to restart, in front as large of crowds as logistically possible. Social distancing of more vulnerable should remain as strict or even stricter. Of course the logistics will be challenging, but at least we'll know it's for a purpose and a move in the right direction. The absurd strategy to get playing again BCD, does nothing but shield people in the hope a vaccine comes along.