As I see it, lockdowns are not effective and were a massive mistake. You may find this epidemiologist's perspective to be interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY
That other 99% really don't seem to know for sure lockdowns are effective; the only arguments I've ever seen them present are "my model says they're effective" or "it would be strange in principle if they weren't". (Some laypeople draw dishonest comparisons to control measures for the Spanish Flu, but epidemiologists know that these measures didn't include orders to stay at home or close all businesses.)
Sweden did start much more slowly that switzerland but they clearly are vastly underperforming in saving their citizens.
You took Switzerland as an example, but if you would have taken Belgium, Sweden would do actually very well. Still, Belgium took quite strict lockdown measures and in a pretty early stage.
What really seems to have had a significant result on keeping the death rate down, is testing: countries like Germany and Switzerland are testing often and early and have done so already in an early stage of the outbreak. This way they were able to treat patients early and to protect vulnerable patients against others in their surrounding that were infected.
The US would probably be at over a million deaths by now if life had continued normally without lockdowns.
I also think we have many different ideas about what's best. (Again, all people I assume are smart.)
This is just a hard scenario. There is no obvious 'best' answer. There may not even be a 'right' answer.