They most certainly did try to pursue herd immunity, but didn't message it publically. This can be seen from emails recently unveiled by a freedom of information request. In which, Anders Tegnell states “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster”. When a colleague stated that such measures might increase the elderly death rate, he replied “10% might be worth it?”.

A number of other emails were deleted by Tegnell because “I delete a lot of emails that I do not consider relevant in a way that needs to be recorded”. We can only speculate what Tegnell deemed unworthy of our consideration.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/swedens-covid-...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01410768209452...

> They most certainly did try to pursue herd immunity, but didn't message it publically.

The email published by The Guardian don't support this. He is mainly discussing the impact of keeping school open balancing the potential death in the elderly population against the immunity boost.

The official message from Sweden has always been they were trying to keep the virus manageable while minimizing the impact on society. This seems to have resulted in more deaths that their direct neighbors (but less than other countries in Europe). History will be able to judge with the full data.

As an aside, The Guardian coverage on coronavirus is generally awful. They usually deeply misrepresent/misunderstand what's happening in France for example.

> The email published by The Guardian don't support this. He is mainly discussing the impact of keeping school open balancing the potential death in the elderly population against the immunity boost.

What is this "immunity boost" you speak of? It sounds like a less intellectually brave version of herd immunity to me. Tegnell, unlike some, did not mince words when he said “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster”. He obviously had that as an object in mind when making decisions.

Herd immunity (or 'immunity boosting') was a disastrous policy and the link below goes into some detail as to the basic conceit of the position.

> This is especially clear in Sweden, where the authorities publicly predicted 40% seroconversion in Stockholm by May 2020; the actual IgG seroprevalence was around 15%

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01410768209452...

Ever heard the term flatten the curve? That is the same as the "herd immunity strategy". There are only two ways of getting herd immunity, either through a vaccine or "naturally".

In march it became apparent that stopping covid would not be possible (at least in Sweden) and the time frame of a potential vaccine was unknown - possibly that it would arrive too late to be useful.

At that point in time there is only one strategy left, herd immunity. The ONLY choice you have is how you want to approach it. Full lock-down and wait for vaccine? - not practically enforceable nor desirable. No restrictions? - Would overrun the hospitals and lead to massive suffering even outside of corona victims (at least in countries with an old population, for countries with a very young population that could very well be the best hing you could do).

Flatten the curve is about curbing the spread so that the hospitals can keep up. Not about stopping the disease. Navigating that road is full of compromises. Taking more risk with children in schools - that have a lot to loose on a lock-down but has low chance of getting seriously ill shouldn't be that of a controversial statement. Even if it turns out that the assumptions made when making that decision was wrong.

There are of course infinite considerations to make but yes, of course he had that in mind when making decisions! As he should have.

Nope, that's what they kind of started saying after the herd immunity experiment failed. Back in May they were still happy to go on record to say that herd immunity was part of the Swedish strategy:

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/845211085/stockholm-expected-...

But by July antibody tests showed that herd immunity was still very far away. Tegnell has since claimed it was never their goal, which to me sounds like hand washing.

EDIT: As pointed, Swedish representatives later asked the article to state that herd immunity was not their goal after all - you could almost forgive the journalist for the confusion. Here is Tegnell instead strategizing in private about letting the virus spread in school children to hasten herd immunity:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/swedens-covid-...

But note the correction at the bottom of that page:

April 27, 2020

An earlier version of this story said the Swedish government is pursuing a strategy of "herd immunity." Swedish officials say their plan was to impose limited restrictions instead of a lockdown but have denied they were purposely pursuing a strategy of herd immunity.

Herd immunity is a potential side-effect of a virus hitting a population, it was never the strategy!

If you have a pandemic with a new virus it would be kind off incompetent of the epidemiologists to not try to calculate if the population will reach herd immunity or not. That does NOT mean that heard immunity is the goal.

So where is your source on herd immunity strategy? Or will you just keep on spreading lies?

EDIT: Off course Sweden, just as Finland admits, calculated and talked about herd immunity. But there is not a single shred of proof that they picked that as a strategy. Do you really think everyone at the FHM (health agency) colluded on doing this behind the backs of the population and then they all keep it a secret? Why? What would there motives be?

The Guardian article definitely gives the game away. I made a comment earlier featuring some of the more damning quotes from the architect of the Swedish strategy.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25580518