I don't think it was wise for any government to begin with the bravery of Sweden when confronting an unknown virus. However, now the virus is understood more, is it possible we need leaders who are prepared to take us back to normal life. Rather than piling on rules, is it time leaders led by sharing responsibility, by spelling out the truth, which is a) that we have a lurking enemy that isn't going to disappear and against which we may never have a vaccine, b) that there are groups who are vulnerable and for them death from this illness is a danger and c) that therefore each individual will be equipped with all the information and advice that the government can muster to allow them to assess the risk they might face.
If an at-risk individual chooses to shelter, they should be free to do so and the government should support them. If, on the other hand, (as many older people seem to), an individual wants to run the risks that come with seeing their children and grandchildren, having decided that a life lived without the pleasures of family and community is not a life they feel is worth living, then that must also be allowed, even though it might lead to the deaths of some of those concerned.
Government's role is not to lay down rules but to provide information so that each individual can make an informed choice. This is understood when it comes to tobacco and alcohol, both seriously dangerous to human health. In their use of those substances, individuals decide what level of danger they are prepared to take on, and the same should apply when it comes to risk from an illness that is not going away.
Our politicians need to be brave, explaining that, while this will pass and we will get through it, pain and death is unavoidable. It is the right of each individual to make a judgment about what peril they are prepared to put up with, and it is the role of government to ensure that each of us is well enough informed to make that judgment. As to the health service, it is not a religion. The government needs to equip it well, not to shield it because it is worried that it isn't well enough equipped.
I do understand that the virus is highly infectious, in a way that alcohol and tobacco are not, but, as I say, each individual, with proper information provided by government, can make the decision to stay out of harm's way - and the government can concentrate its efforts on providing assistance to them to do that. The option must be there for the vulnerable to avoid crowded restaurants, buses and theatres, but the option for those who are not vulnerable - (or who decide that they don't mind running a considerable risk) - to continue life as usual must also be provided. Aside from anything else, if the path of never-ending blanket lockdown is followed, there will be no money to fund a health service of any kind, and then where will we be? But more importantly, a society made of people who make their own informed choices is a mature society, whereas a society where people are told what they must do and obey because they are punished when they are naughty is one in which we are infantilised and ruled without respect.