The truth about Sweden's voluntary lockdown: Sweden didn’t ‘refuse’ to lockdown. Nor does it have a herd immunity strategy, although it was recognised that some level of immunity in the population could be a side effect of its approach. The false premise of that rumour is that Sweden stayed open in order to allow the virus to spread, thus promoting herd immunity. In reality, Swedish law does not allow for many types of lockdown measures. Even something as simple as closing a beach is tricky because, in general, beach access is covered by the Right of Public Access which, in turn, is enshrined in the Swedish constitution. The limitations of Swedish law partly explain why the parliament passed temporary amendments to the Communicable Diseases Act in the spring, which would have allowed for the closure of shops and other commercial spaces (this provision expired at the end of June without being used).
So Sweden did not refuse to lockdown; rather it was not really an option. The Public Health Agency also believed that voluntary measures would work as well as compulsory ones and that people could be trusted to act responsibly. However, Swedes are not inherently more responsible than other people. But by repeatedly and consistently telling us that we were responsible and could be trusted to use our judgement, the government and authorities performed an extremely effective Jedi-mind trick: we were told that we were responsible, so most of us were responsible.
