The challenge is that Swedes tend to be relatively healthy, antisocial, and sensible isn't either very actionable or quantifiable. Though there is an implication (which is a clear agenda in this paper) that explicit government policies didn't make a whole lot of difference in this case.

That's pretty dismissive. The article mainly addresses the premise that Sweden's actions produced a better outcome than other countries including ones which had a predilection for social distancing. This is by no means universally conceded.

It would be nice to think that other countries could learn something after accepting that Sweden actually had a better outcome.

I'm not sure it's really dismissive. It's more that, even given a lack of strict government policy actions, Sweden ended up having as good or relatively better outcomes than many/most other countries. But I'm not sure be more like Sweden makes a very useful playbook--except insofar as the policy recommendation is to take a few high impact actions (e.g. around nursing homes, almost certainly vaccines, etc.) and otherwise have a fairly light touch.

Indeed. A question we should be asking is what the Swedish government should have done if faced by mass non-compliance

And before we ask that question we should ask how non-compliance is affected by edicts versus presentation of the costs/benefits of actions and the rationale for any suggestions.