As Europe and the world emerge blearily to survey the wreckage of lockdown, the question is still left hanging. Was Sweden right? Stockholm gambled in its response to coronavirus, but neither its economy nor its healthcare system have collapsed. Just two months ago, it held hands with Britain in rejecting total lockdown. Then on 23 March, Boris Johnson did a U-turn, leaving Sweden ... on its own. Since then the divergence has become radical and political. The one table that glares at us daily is ... deaths per million. The most stringent lockdowns - as in China, Italy, Spain, New Zealand and Britain - have yielded both high and low deaths per million. Hi-tech has apparently worked" in South Korea, but so has no-tech in Sweden. Sweden's 319 deaths per million is far ahead of locked-down Norway's 40 and Denmark's 91, but it's well behind locked-down UK's 465 and Spain's 569. Sweden's light-touch policy is led by two scientists, Johan Giesecke and his protg Anders Tegnell. The latter currently leads Stockholm's strategy with ... 73% popular support. Tegnell has been emphatic throughout. A degree of social distancing and avoiding crowds is enough. As for lockdown, "Nothing to do with [it] has a scientific basis." [Sweden] has kept itself open and at work, and has not seen the surge in "all-causes excess deaths" of the UK and other high-lockdown states. According to Tegnell ... "there is no other escape" but to find ways of living with this virus. Sweden gambled in its response, but so did the rest of the world. The UN warns that the world could lose four years of growth at a cost of $8.5 trillion. Famine and further disease will be rife. That was surely the greater gamble.