The wrong response is to ignore the point of the Swedish numbers specifically, even though the conclusions are painful. A reasonable conclusion isn't "oh that's terrible they're lying with statistics" and then proposing a meaningless alternative (nobody cares if COVID shifts expected mortality around by a few months, they only care about deaths that were avoidable and wouldn't have happened anyway). The correct response is to remember that Sweden was supposed to be a bloodbath in which every single hospital would be overflowing onto the streets, in which people would be collapsing unable to breathe in their hundreds of thousands whilst the rest of the world looked on in pity, safely locked down at home.
Clearly that didn't happen, which invalidates the claims of the 'experts' that said it would. When you read their papers the problems that led to these erroneous claims are very clear, but given the top rated comment on this thread it'll probably be a long time before the wider HN community is able to critically examine the deep structural flaws in the field of epidemiology. If ever.