Sweden's GDP per capita is more than double of Portugal and 40% bigger than Italy, two countries prominently noted in his analysis. There are two huge factors here other than wealth that are vastly different between Scandinavian countries and the rest of Europe: socialization patterns and weather, with both tending to make the virus way less likely to spread in the North.
> Epidemiologists and their models claimed such thresholds would be reached but those models were wrong about everything. It never actually happened.
Italy's healthcare system was overwhelmed early on in the epidemic, causing a ton of deaths, and hospitals all over the world approached 100% ICU capacity at several points in the last two years. I don't know where you pulled your numbers from, but they are wrong, and so is your conclusion.
>> "It's simply incorrect to use the number of deaths as the single measure of effectiveness of lockdowns"
> Reducing that one number was the entire justification for lockdowns! Now it's "simply incorrect" to observe that there is no link between them. Absurd.
It's basic logic: if we had to use lockdowns in the most extreme cases where hospitals were reaching capacity, then these countries would have experienced a higher death rate regardless of what they did. The question is whether the lockdowns had any effect on easing the burdens in the hospitals or not, but you cannot compare Portugal with Sweden and say "oh hey, more people died in Portugal and they did a lockdown, therefore lockdowns are bad/useless".