That doesn't really change anything. To the extent the vulnerable are holed up inside, everyone else is welcome to get it, display mild flu-like symptoms, and develop herd immunity.
Sweden isn’t proof of anything, please stop using it as though it is.
Your claim is that the vulnerable can be “holed up” while everyone else goes about their happy business. There is no such thing, and I challenge you to provide the details and success as measured by per-demographic death rates of any proof you may have.
The crux of the issue is this: Neither I nor the Swedes believe that you can keep this disease at bay by hiding indoors for a few months and then opening back up well in advance of a vaccine which appears to be the entire world's game plan. I think it's fair to say there won't be a vaccine for 12-18 months, and we're not as a society prepared to stay indoors for that long.
Not to mention even with complete lockdowns around the US we're somehow seeing 38,000 new cases per day. This is not winning. With an R0 of 2-5 a single new infected person post lockdown lifting is going to set the wildfire ablaze again. As China is showing us, if you lock down then re-open, you're just going to start playing whack-a-mole with rolling city-level lockdowns.
Even if we were to stay inside for months, the case the Swedes are making is that deaths are higher now than in locked down countries, but unlike locked down countries, the Swedes will have developed herd immunity in a few months, and will never be affected again.
This makes the temporary delta in death rates not a success for locked-down countries but rather a temporary deferral.
Sweden is proof of something, but it's not clear yet what. Somehow, their new case load is pretty flat, just like the US. [1]
