That's because we've put our countries into lockdown. If we hadn't then do you think the deaths would have been far higher? (I think the answer to that is 'yes'). Unfortunately we can't stay in lock down forever...
edit-to-add:
I recall during our new parent class the lecture where they were discouraging the use of pain drugs during birth because it increased the chance of a bad outcome by 2x or 4X. (I can't remember the actual value the nurse said.)
When I asked what is the actual chance of a bad outcome and what is 2x of that. She didn't know and didn't like me pointing out in front of the class that 2x was probably still pretty close to zero.
Sweden, Belarus and now Switzerland are proving that if you don't do lockdowns you get ... nothing. Same kind of epidemic as everywhere else. Nothing out of the ordinary and a year that's comparable to any flu year.
Look at the data for parts of Switzerland that didn't lock down for the second wave (which is most of it, including where I live). It goes into remission anyway, without overflowing hospitals or mass deaths.
Remember that the only reason you believe deaths would be far higher without lockdowns is epidemiologists predicted that. But they have a long track record of making predictions that are always wrong. This time they were wrong again, just like all the other times. There was never any experience based justification for lockdowns or even restrictions of any form: only models, which have turned out to be buggy and unrealistic.
It's definitely not comparable to any flu year, although definitely not crazy bad (unlike other countries).
In case of Poland, with ~5-10% infected population, the last month was the most deadly since the last decade (and possibly - since the WW2):
https://infogram.com/liczba-zgonow-w-dobie-epidemii-1hnp27w9...
But look at total mortality so far in Sweden for 2020. Nothing special, on track to be a normal year. They had a very mild 2019 so it'll probably be higher than that, but nothing special in context. Same for Switzerland.
It's definitely not comparable to any flu year
I suspect you're using the word "comparable" differently to me. Biologically, sure it is. It hits the older a bit harder and the young not at all, so in some ways it's actually better than flu. However with flu since ~2000 there have been vaccines, and for COVID there isn't, so that makes it a bit worse. But if you widen your historical context and look at years before the flu vaccines arrived, then it's entirely comparable to flu years in the sense that mortality numbers are ending up very similar or even the same.
Look at the long term data for Sweden to put things in perspective:
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sweden-monthly-...
Or for the UK
http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/
The world has seen far worse within living memory.
W.R.T. Poland, you didn't have a COVID first wave at all, and your second is correlated with the rest of Europe so you're going to be "doubling up" compared to some other places. But your epidemic peaked on November 11th, which means death will also soon peak, and therefore your results will look hardly different to other countries, none of which have experienced the huge waves of death that were supposedly going to engulf any country that didn't lock down. That's what matters: not whether COVID is 10% or 30% worse than a typical post-vaccine flu wave, or whether it's the same as a pre-vaccine flu wave. Those are all minor details. What matters is that the world is being put through crazy totalitarian restrictions and evil based on predictions that it'd be 10,000x worse than flu. And those predictions are all totally, completely, unambiguously wrong.