Sweden has a way of triggering people. It represents everything we’re supposed to do or everything we’re not supposed to do. It is the welfare state at its best or multiculturalism at its worst. True to form, or contrary to form, Sweden is now setting off everyone in its handling of the coronavirus. Unlike most of the developed world, including neighboring Norway or Denmark, Sweden has kept its elementary schools running and allowed most its businesses, including restaurants and bars, to remain open. Travel in and out of the country remains possible for E.U. nationals. And social distancing remains, for the most part, voluntary, provided the group in question has fewer than 50 people. In short, Sweden has refused to join the rest of us in a lockdown.

This has caused a lot of traditional Sweden lovers and Sweden bashers to trade places. Much of the MSNBC left, which normally loves Sweden, now shakes its head. Much of the Fox News right, which often scorns Sweden, is now a fan. Populists on both sides are critical, with the populist left interpreting Sweden’s response as an outgrowth of a cold-blooded neoliberalism (market efficiencies over humanity) and the populist right seeing it as an outgrowth of a fanatical globalism (loose borders over health). To be sure, these are broad stereotypes with huge exceptions (some populists love what Sweden is doing and some Fox News types hate it), but they’re useful as a big picture.

In the prestige press, which among these factions is closest in sympathies to the MSNBC left, we see lots of articles hinting at impending disaster. “Sweden’s Relaxed Approach to the Coronavirus Could Already Be Backfiring,” warns a Time headline. “Sweden Girds for Thousands of Deaths Amid Laxer Virus Policy,” reports Bloomberg. “Swedish PM warned over ‘Russian roulette-style’ COVID-19 strategy,” offers the Guardian. As for the populist right, Trump has mollified it with some gentle slams of Sweden’s approach, claiming that “Sweden is suffering greatly.”

Meanwhile, many of those on the establishment right are now looking to Sweden as a role model of keeping the show going and letting commerce proceed. “Sweden has courageously decided not to endorse a harsh quarantine, and consequently it hasn’t forced its residents into lockdown,” wrote John Fund and Joel Hay in National Review. “Sweden is developing herd immunity by refusing to panic.”

It’s understandable that people have strong reactions to Sweden’s experiment. After all, every fight we have over how some other country has been handling this crisis is a fight we’re having with ourselves about how to handle it. Have we gone too far or not far enough? Should we try to push cases to zero or just flatten the curve? What happens if we loosen up sooner rather than later? How many deaths is a growing economy worth? But all of the baggage we bring to our conceptions of Sweden—if we happen to have conceptions of Sweden—gets in the way of giving its policies a fair appraisal. Whatever comes of Sweden’s approach, it’ll have something to teach us about the spread of this disease. So let’s try to understand what’s behind it and what we’re seeing.

To start with, it’s a myth that Sweden is doing nothing about the virus. Most Swedes have changed their habits a lot. Schools for older kids are closed, as are universities. People are working from home, when they can, and the elderly are being urged to keep to themselves. Gatherings of over 50 people are prohibited, and ski resorts are closed. Restaurants and bars are allowing table service only, and grocery stores are installing glass dividers between customers and cashiers. People who go to Stockholm may be stunned to see bars and cafés with customers, but they’re seeing only the Swedes who choose to run higher risks. They’re not seeing all the Swedes who are staying home.