Okay, I am almost getting what Sweden's approach would like to achieve in the end.

Never mind if someone gets infected when it implements a soft approach towards social distancing coupled with an aversion to the so-called LOCKDOWN. What matters is its own citizens' EXCEPTIONALISM and natural 'extreme individualism' will serve them right to get protected from most likely getting infected and bedridden by the virus. They already had such set-up in place prior to the coming of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing changes. It is like treating the newly mutated virus as a virus for a common flu (with milder symptoms).

Only the elderly and the immunocompromised get to be protected and needed an urgent care and have to be isolated from the rest of the herd. The more active and healthy ones needed to move on with their normal daily routines in public or in and out of their homes.

THAT'S THE APPROACH I am trying to understand. On the other hand, would it not be better to isolate the newly mutated virus and stop this from further spreading? Lockdown, of course, is not enough to do this. The asymptomatic carriers who had close contacts with the infected ones and had experienced serious symptoms (some of whom already died) needed to be tracked down.

The anti-thesis to this suggestion is of course allowing, especially, the younger age group and more abled adults to move on as long as they are not having serious medical issues; no need to be wearing masks in public; it is simply social distancing that has to be implemented (take note on a soft stance unlike that of its neighboring Scandinavian countries). It is okay for the healthy ones to get infected via asymptomatic transmission because they have a stronger immunity. They will hurdle it in the most successful way as compared to those who have several issues regarding their health. Once they hurdled it, they get the antibodies and are naturally immuned from the disease.

THAT'S THE APPROACH RIGHT?

But there is a caveat to this approach; the less fit needed to get sacrificed and the transmission will end up with them on their death. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

What I am saying here is that I AM NOT YET SOLD TO THE SO-CALLED "HERD IMMUNITY". While I don't put my 100% trust to a vaccine to help prevent viral transmission/infection I still believe that putting an end to this newly mutated virus, via its ISOLATION, is more worth a pound of prevention than relying on herd immunity, per se, as an ounce of cure or should it be the other way around?

Take note that viruses can't continue to thrive when they could not find a host or hosts for their replication activities. Scientists had long been baffled by their semi-living characteristics but were finally decided to be considered a non living thing.

https://covid19.who.int/explorer