The Swedenistas are getting a bit silly.

Sweden has been doing relatively OK during Covid, and they've certainly outperformed expectations.
But it's also very far from a brilliant success story.
Their excess mortality rate has been a good deal higher than in the neighbour countries, and the economy is doing no better.

"Ah", say the Swedenistas, "but back in spring, they didn't just say it would be somewhat worse than in the neighbour countries! They said there would be a bloodbath! Mayhem!"

Well, so what? I don't care what "they" predicted. *I* did not predict that, did I?

Why should we only compare Sweden to the most alarmist predictions?
I don't care about the Swedenistas' personal vendettas against those who made the predictions. Yes, they were wrong. So?
But I didn't predict anything. I'm looking at the data NOW, and I'm unimpressed by Sweden.

It's also often been pointed out that Sweden, being a very rule-abiding, high-trust society, has adopted quite a lot of voluntary social distancing. That works there, but it wouldn't work everywhere.
Swedenistas don't accept that argument, because...

...they'll cry "Ah, but that wasn't the argument back in spring! Back then, they predicted a bloodbath, not voluntary social distancing!"
Again - so what? The "voluntary social distancing" argument is either correct, or it's not. It doesn't matter whether it was made then, or not

The "voluntary social distancing" (VSD) argument wasn't made back in spring, because people didn't think about Sweden very much in spring.
But whether it was first made in March, August or October is irrelevant. It's either correct or not. And it strikes me as at least plausible.

The success stories in all this are Taiwan and Hong Kong - not Sweden.
Sweden is the Heineken of Covid strategies: drinkable if necessary, but without any distinct advantages over most of the competition, and just as overpriced.