The state broadcaster in Australia (ABC) broadcast an hour-long episode of their program "Foreign Correspondent" in which the Singaporean government were granted a platform to explain how their approach was far more civilised and liberal, with better results and more freedoms than the efforts of Australia. They prated on and on about the benefits of their system of both disease control and government trust and how low their disease numbers and civilian discontent was.
The disease control aspect has not aged well.
Sweden's strategy can work for them because it relies on the public to make the correct choices.. which can work when people observe hygiene rules, social distancing, etc.
But this sort of strategy can't work with if you have a population that isn't willing to actively participate in minimizing the risk.
Learning from what's happening in Sweden should help guide decisions elsewhere.
The process of comparison is messy and politicized and in some sense always potentially premature, but I don't think for all that it should be forsworn.
Sweden might not be at a plateau yet and turn into the UK in a couple of weeks time. Or they are indeed at a plateau and they will reach herd immunity with minimal societal and economical damage.
Other countries with hard lockdowns might look good in comparison to Sweden at the moment but might have a hard-hitting second wave.
Whatever the outcome, we won't know until this is over. Which is why I am not a big fan of comparing 'effectiveness' at this early stage.