Just a quick point, which needs to be made more often:
A decision to suppress the circulation of the virus by restrictive economic and social measures is a POLITICAL decision, not a SCIENTIFIC one.
Science can tell you what will happen with various levels and durations of restriction. There is now a lot of data on that.
Science CANNOT tell you if the price is justified by the consequences of wider viral circulation.
SE's economy went down less than ours but they had more fatalities.
I like Sweden's hands off approach but I distrust their authority bias - that's a whole separate issue.
What's interesting in my analysis (or so I think) is the gaps along the trendline. The hypothesis - that there IS a tradeoff between economic growth and lockdowns - is supported by the negative slope of the trend line. But we see many instances of countries that had low size-adjusted fatalities but their economy performed worse than the trend line, like NZ. But then we have Australia, which ALSO had a low adjusted fatality count but had a much stronger economic performance.
FWIW, I also built a model that accounted for a country being an island, but that factor wasn't statistically significant.
More to come, but clearly it was possible to contain with AND without destroying the economy...America is, relatively speaking, on the side of better economic performance. But I'd love to know what AU did that NZ didn't do..