In reality this argument is a form of motivated reasoning. It boils down to, if you ignore all the countries that disprove the hypothesis behind lockdowns and take a tiny number that did better than Sweden, then search backwards for some justification as to why this cherry picking is legitimate, you get a 'neighbours hypothesis' that unfortunately has to ignore some of the neighbours.
It's just rationalizing by people who cannot accept that lockdowns failed, because if they accepted that they'd have to accept that academic expertise in general has failed. And not only failed. Failed in ways that were destructive and damaging.
People compare other countries to Australia and New Zealand and Singapore all the time to justify covid lockdowns and restrictions.
But in the case of Sweden a country that outright disproves effectiveness of covid restrictions you require the frame of reference to only be the specific neighboring countries to cherry pick to fit your narrative.
It's either monstrously nightmarishly disingenuous or completely boneheaded and clueless.
But when it comes to Sweden the one country that disproves their narrative it has to be just a neighboring countries.
It seems so disingenuous to me.
We don't limit comparison of Italy to Mediterranean countries, or England to British Isle countries.
Sweden is a European country.
On a European scale Sweden was right in the middle of the pack in deaths per capita.