I've been the resident mask ranterer since late March (?) and feel your frustration! If everyone wears a mask, they keep at least some of their C19 in the mask, thereby reducing the amount that is in the air and on surfaces...lower viral load for others.I repeat, it has been pointed out again and again and again by virtually every epidemiologist that the primary purpose of masks is to prevent the wearers from spreading the virus, not to protect the wearer from the virus. There is thought to be some benefit for the latter, but that is secondary. Everything you have quoted Gupta as saying about this indicates that, indeed, she doesn't get it. If she got it, she would not recommend masks only for those most seriously at risk. This is ass-backwards.
Even if she thinks masks can cause health problems--and this idea has also been rebutted--it wouldn't support letting older people, certain to be more vulnerable to such problems, wear masks, would it? The only rationale she could possibly have for recommending those at risk wear masks is that masks protect wearers, and while there does seem to be some benefit, it's nowhere near as important as protecting others.
Here's another lesson for you. In science, we don't defer to authority. It doesn't make any difference what position someone holds or how many papers the person has published, s/he gets criticized on the basis of merit. And Gupta's advice that only those at high risk should wear masks is without merit. Not because every other epidemiologist will contradict it, though that certainly ought to sway most people, but because the overwhelming amount of evidence does.
I've been a scientist for decades, but I've never discussed the positions I've held, nor listed the number of peer-reviewed papers I've published, nor emphasized my fields of expertise. Why? Because none of that matters. If I make a claim here, I cite studies that back it up, I don't ask people to believe me because I'm an authority.
And it's the same with any other real scientist. Do you ever hear Fauci say, believe what I say, because I'm a famous virologist, and know what I'm talking about? Of course not. When he makes a point, or claim, or recommendation, he cites evidence, reasons that support that position.
I addressed this upthread. I pointed out that even if the most optimistic interpretations are true, and that there are twice as many people with antibodies as previously thought (but see Baltimore's post), it still doesn't bring Stockholm, let alone the rest of the world, close to herd immunity.
The strategy most definitely was herd immunity. He can backtrack and deny, just as other herd immunity proponents, like Scott Atlas, have done, and maybe Tegnell himself never advocated this, but other public officials in Sweden did, and I sure don't recall Tegnell vigorously opposing them. As i said before, one of these officials was optimistically predicting that Stockholm would get there by the end of June.
If masks cause health problems, why don't people like surgeons always have health issues from wearing masks much of the day?