So there seems to be an inclination toward dismissing what has worked in Iceland, that it would not work in the UK because of the UK's much larger population. What do we then expect of an island population which is a quarter of Iceland's - it should do at least as well if not better (and why not ?) ? Take a look at this:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/isle-of-man/
cassa333 at 11.09 is in my opinion correct and so is New Judge at 13.59, the UK knows what is required but nevertheless fails ("bottles it" as cassa said, NJ said they simply can't get it together). One has to ask the question whether, if the British Isles (Isle of Man included) were populated by sixty-odd million Icelanders, they would have done any worse than the 370 thousand of them in Iceland. The point seems to be more what culture/mentality is at work and whether those in charge have the vision, are sufficiently organised, determined, etc. rather than simple numbers. It is no good to point to others having done even worse or resorting to spurious/unsubstantiated conclusions which have an awful lot in common with excuses of various kinds. Any example looking significantly poorer than the best is by definition poorer - the greater the difference the worse it gets.
Iceland's primary schools and/or childcare centres were never closed unless infection arose among the staff (then all quarantined together with individual households). Iceland was never closed to travel in or out and as the link shows, blanket quarantining of arrivals is quite a new requirement. There has never been a "lockdown" on the UK's scale and people have been able to gather in numbers of up to 20. The first death in Iceland was that of an Australian tourist who, with his wife, presented himself at hospital so close to death that he died within a few hours (underlying health problems).