Thomas C King

The figures overwhelmingly support everything I've just said. If you have some research contrary, then I'd be interested in giving it a read. If we're reading from different sources, then you may find this paper, one of many, an interesting starting point: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa864/5866094

That doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate. "67 million" suggests to me that you think I'm talking about the UK? I'm talking about Sweden, which is doing poorly compared to countries with similar population density and culture but polar-opposite policies.

I don't think this is going anywhere. If there is something wrong with the common interpretation of the data by epidemiologists, and "words are being used to hide" whatever is wrong, then you can describe in specific detail your objections to the interpretation and what the science has got wrong...

I'm not suggesting we should all agree with newspaper articles, otherwise we'd be in an incoherent state, but go and look at the information behind it. Anyway, to answer, "better" is normative and hence an opinion, and in this case it's not shared with the consensus of epidemiologists, including Sweden's primary/state one. Why, even when compared to the UK? You need to compare to similar contexts, countries in this case. For example, the Netherlands has more bike accidents per cyclist than the UK, but it would be wrong to conclude that it's more dangerous for cyclists (we should actually conclude the opposite). Likewise, Sweden's population density is completely different to ours. Comparing to similar and neighboring countries paints an appalling picture of how badly it is done with its policy, which despite the far higher deaths has not achieved herd immunity.

Sweden has been doing terribly compared to its similarly populous neighbors, this is an interesting article on the politics of it all: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/26/swedish-exceptionalism-coronavirus-covid19-death-toll

I'd go to the police first, I know prosecution seems a bit of a faff and may not be possible, they can also record the incident should anything happen and have a word. I know going to the police can seem futile, but to give an unrelated example, I notified the Lancashire police of some random guy who jumped out at me from behind a wall and then shouted "boo <racist word" and then walked on. It sounds minor, but I was mostly concerned that the perpetrator had lost his marbles. It turned out not to be an isolated incident and the police spoke to him. Importantly, I felt safer, and I hope that the OP might feel the same way if they make a short phone call for what sounds like a far more serious issue.