I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to misrepresent things or if you just haven't bothered looking at the situation, but their death rate has obviously not been constant through the entire thing (or since 2005 or whatever silly figure you may want to bring up for the sake of a disingenuous argument). Obviously at some point months ago it was zero, they let it run through the community relatively unchecked (some mitigation measures but no lockdowns, just let it run). Because they didn't try to contain it or have spotfire lockdown strategies like the Australian nonsense, it is there, it exists at a stable level, and has stabilised. At that stable level it is killing a negligible number of people (with one exceptional day on Friday where 5 deaths were recorded, but zero death days are not unusual now).
By contrast, attempting to play an eternally ongoing cat and mouse strategy where you lock everyone down in response to outbreaks then open back up when the disease is at an 'acceptable level' means no heard immunity happens, you never get a particularly big problem anyway, but you probably have more virus deaths overall and you have a perpetually retarded economy, social problems, etc.
It's funny that I get accused of being off topic, but I actually try to relate it back to the topic and when I don't post all weekend I come back to pages of posts where people don't make that attempt.
Here is a link to Sweden's figures:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Compare it to Australia's:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/
Compare the graphs (or numbers if you prefer) of active cases and daily death count. When you look at these pictures it's clear that Sweden's model, that is, not locking down, accepting that the virus will spread, allowing it to spread and come to a trivial level disease which never needs to have a noteworthy economic impact at all, is superior. Not just economically (which is the topic of this thread) but socially, etc, and I would strongly argue that not forcefully removing human liberty and agency has an extreme value in itself.
We keep seeing personal anecdotes of people with elderly relatives. No one is saying a 97 year old woman's life means nothing, but we need to accept that the lives and wellbeing of the entire country has value too! Even if we weren't worried about the economy it makes no sense to remove liberty and agency and human rights (and lives!) from millions of humans beings for the sake of a small number of old people. That small number of old people may be important *but so are all the other people*