Brit asserted that Swedens purported 2nd wave would be the same as everywhere else having a 2nd wave.
The entire point of Sweden's approach is that they get their 2nd and 3rd and 4th waves within their first wave, so even if they are unsuccessful with that, at the very least the nature of their 2nd wave will be different from others.
Once your most vulnerable are dead, the rest, who all fall into lower risk groups, are less likely to die, and it seems less likely to become infected with symptoms. And thus their death rate falls.
To extend the argument to its logical conclusion eventually you will have herd immunity both because many people will have had it and those that remain that haven’t are too low risk to be affected (significantly). Even if Sweden has many vulnerable left, the proportion of their vulnerable to their Sacndavin neighbours is still less and again death rate falls.
If you’re a supporter of Sweden’s model you might also find data that suggests that some level of broader society immunity has started to be achieved.
Whatever your belief, Sweden’s death rate (currently) is way down.
Yes Sweden's death rate has fallen but when they are falling from one of the highest death rates in the world in a low population low density high wealth situation that should have a low death rate then it is hardly anything to be that happy about. Only a few thousand people died unnecessarily.
BUT if Sweden can keep it's now very low infection and death rates for the next few weeks/months (it's only been 5 days since the fortune article and the 'masks pointless now' comment) then their approach will be looking much more promising.
There's an assumption that covid has the ability to affect everyone (with the same age and same comorbities) equally though there's other factors that might yet have a bearing:
Why so many asymptomatics?
What about prior exposure to TB vaccine or other flu like viruses?
The example of spanish flu and 28 yr olds...