You say that the prime minister is to blame, but the King doesn't say so explicitly, and I point this out because in Sweden's media climate it is for some reason not obvious that the PM is to blame when it all falls short. Because they (the PM and cabinet and the health authority) name their own factors and institutions that they blame.

I think the PM should take responsibility, so evidently say you, but unfortunately the King didn't say that.

You are correct, that the King is not explicit in this, he cannot be, he's a constitutional monarch. However, the subtly is thick, and it's not hard to read between the lines, that he is thinking the government of Sweden has failed Sweden. He represents the government of Sweden, and when he is indirectly apologising, that's the statement he is making.

And who is liable for the government in the end? Prime Minister Löfven. I think it's hard to read anything else between the lines here.

Even assuming that's true, why should anyone care? Why would someone's family line give their opinion about the coronavirus approach more value than anyone else's?

I'm not Swedish. I'm from one of those full-on democracies without a monarch, so take this opinion with some salt.

The king isn't an infections disease expert, but he's not an idiot, and he can get any experts he want to tell him what's going on. He's also the one person "in government" who can speak truth about the prime minister without fearing the prime minister's wrath. This lets the king be the one who can say what needs to be said when nobody else will say it.

Non-swedes have to understand that our prime minister does not have the power to call for a lockdown. It would require a change in our constitution, which can't be done in a hurry. (there is legislation being worked on to address the cases the shortcomings of the law but it is not being rushed)

Our PM also doesn't have the authority to tell our public health agency what to do, this amounts to ministerial governance, which is illegal [1]. (if the US would have such a law, for example, then we would have seen a lot less involvement of POTUS)

And re our king: he's (arguably) not an idiot, but he's not very bright either. We generally don't take his opinion seriously.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_governance

If you get a job, then it doesn't matter who your family is or if you're the best person for the job(!). If you are lead architect of your company, your job is to give directions etc.

Same thing here. Doesn't matter there's others that could replace the king is his job.. he's the current one with that job, so we listen in a way that takes his position into account.

I confess I come from a country that has so little respect for that job that we abolished the position, and I don't know much about Swedish royalty. What qualifications, knowledge, authority, responsibility are associated with that job? And considering that, how much respect does the job deserve?

As a Swede: Practically none, it's all just for show.

Because they monarchy is an institution that represents the nation itself and is its unifying symbol. It's not the family but the institution that matters, it has considerable public support and when they speak, which they usually don't, it matters for that very reason.

In Canada and Britain at least the monarch can dosplve the government, and asl the house to form a new government, or call an election

As I understand it, in Britain by law, the monarch only may prorogue or dissolve Parliament on advice of the Privy Council, and further that the legal effect of such an act by the Crown is dependent not only on the advice of the Council but on the legality of that advice, which can be struck down as unlawful by the courts negating the effect of the order; it is a power of the Queen (or King)-in-Council as the power to create law is of the Queen/King-in-Parliament.

I would be surprised if the monarch retained greater independent personal authority as Queen of Canada.

It is a very unswedish thing to point the finger and blame someone from what I can tell, the best you will get is "not my fault"

It's maybe time to EU to follow through and admit that both EU and individual countries approaches were a disgrace that costed, and will cost, too many lives.

Wait...what would have been the better approach then?

Well clearly something has failed when some countries have the pandemic under control for months now, and EU is riding waves.

Or we want to ignore success cases? Because neither the media or governance talks about it, don't even mention that are countries in economic recovery and they match countries that have the pandemic under control.

It's like living with the virus is bad for the economy.

I think a big part of it was public discourse, some faced this pandemic has a battle that must be won, others took it has an inconvenience. This second group, the majority, then went on to face issues like individual rights crises that resemble something like everyone is entitled to their RIGHTS, but somehow they forgot about DUTY and RESPONSABILITIES.

I know of two major examples:

* China and other countries using state surveillance and privacy infringement to control the virus.

* New Zealand which is a pretty sparsely populated isolated island.

Korea - tremendous testing and good mask adherence

Australia - long lockdowns

Singapore - probably falls in with China on state surveillance and privacy infringement

Taiwan - has been one of the best examples since the beginning, and a model that was followed by other countries successfully

Utilise the awesome powers of hindsight and backseat driving?

Because there isn't any good example in the past year?

The EU would just enact a covid tax for anyone infected