Why is it that people that use Sweden as a bad example use the wrong information?! Noone is stopped from IVA, at least not anyone who would be admitted to IVA outside of a pandemic (a sick and fragile 85+ person might at any time be considered too fragile for IVA, intensive care is tough). 20% available IVA have been maintained due to increase and reallocation of resources.
Swedens main issue is that the hard pressed and partly privatised elder care have been infected in too high numbers, please make an issue out of that instead! And I also want to point out that the Swedish governments strategy have been the same all along, flatten the curve to let healthcare cope (and it has so far) and protect the risk groups.
It would be interesting for those not wanting to touch the concept of herd immunity how they intend to handle this. If not immunity is achieved that way, how long do you suggest that measures can be maintained until a functional and tested vaccine is available?