Sweden saw the same level of damage to their export-oriented industries as their neighbours did, but less damage to the service industries that are directly affected by a lockdown and less of a decrease in mobility: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/01/na060120-swe... You can't just lump the two together and claim it shows that not locking down causes about the same level of economic damage as locking down, especially given that those export losses are presumably directly attributable to their neighbours' lockdowns.

This indicates Sweden wound up with relatively similar de-facto restrictions (a social distancing strictness of ~50 versus ~60 for the other Nordic nations) and a substantially higher death rate.

It also says "Sweden did not record an economic contraction in Q1 of 2020", which is a misleading claim, given the lockdowns largely came in the last few weeks of that quarter, and later goes on to acknowledge "Forecasters agree that Sweden will face a severe recession in 2020".

I don't think this really supports the case you're trying to make.

Because Sweden's economy relies on exports. They have economic damage when their neighbors lock down, independent of their own lockdown status.