He predicted that the virus was circulating many times more widely than people thought (20-25%) -- and posited much of his strategy on that.
In reality that appears to be closer to 7%.
He was also particularly wrong in attacking other countries - and the underlying Imperial College study that influenced them - for locking down in the way they did.
18.1m people came in and out of the UK between January and March in the UK -- nearly twice the entire population of Sweden. What was optimal for Sweden would never have been optimal for others.
> 18.1m people came in and out of the UK between January and March in the UK -- nearly twice the entire population of Sweden. What was optimal for Sweden would never have been optimal for others.
Yep. This is critical. The UK originally wanted to follow the Swedish strategy, but it was a disastrous failure that left us with the highest per capita excess death rates in the world, only brought under control by lockdown.
Sweden was somewhat more isolated hence the initial growth of the disease was slower, and was considerably more isolated over everybody else's lockdown period.
He predicted that the virus was circulating many times more widely than people thought (20-25%) -- and posited much of his strategy on that.
In reality that appears to be closer to 7%.
He was also particularly wrong in attacking other countries - and the underlying Imperial College study that influenced them - for locking down in the way they did.
18.1m people came in and out of the UK between January and March in the UK -- nearly twice the entire population of Sweden. What was optimal for Sweden would never have been optimal for others.