I don't think it is a case of right or wrong. If the Swedish society as a whole likes his approach, who are we to say that they are wrong. However, the Swedes need to know that their approach is condemning the most vulnerable to death. And Tegnell is totally comfortable with that; their death is regrettable, he said, but necessary.
I am rather surprise the right-wingers who believes that the government should not interfere in the lives of people have no objection to the state now deciding which group of people to throw to the coronavirus to kill.
Tegnell doesn't understand that wearing of mask is to reduce infection, thus commenting that Swedes don't wear mask because they stay at home when sick. This cavalier attitude doesn't recognize asymptomatic spreaders.
He had claimed that 40 percent of the population would achieve immunity by end of May. Looks like he is far off with about 10 percent achieving that. So, how many more thousands of lives will have to be sacrificed before that herd immunity is achieved?
I think that if society is torn apart over lockdowns then a better approach is to divide the regions, cities or countries into areas where the practitioners of each approach can live beliefs. They will agree to stay within their region and not interact physically. That way, everyone is happy and time will that reveal which is the most efficacy approach.