I agree that the traditional implementations of socialism where the state controls production of — or, like in the US, imposes strict regulations on — industries (though in the US many of these regulations are heavily influenced by corporate lobbying) is inefficient and most likely would have been less prepared for a pandemic than the US was. I suspect that most people referred to as "socialist" in our day and age have no interest in seeing the US go down that road. Sweden will be interesting to watch because it is a much more open country in terms of trade and regulations. It does, however, have universal healthcare which is primarily government funded. Many here would directly attribute that to socialism. You definitely wouldn't see a system like that in a perfectly free-market. What impact does the assurance of healthcare, regardless of employment status, provide the workforce that they are asking to remain largely intact?

I also agree with your assessment that full capitalism would most likely be the first to reach full economic recovery from major setbacks such as pandemics. I don't believe it would do so in a way that would be most beneficial for the most people. That's an obvious statement but when you are considering that that in this situation the chief among those benefits is simply making it out alive it becomes a much more difficult conversation for me. It's easy to say I'm in favor of a free market and progression at all cost as I sit here and type it from my home office and have little to no chance of becoming seriously ill from Covid-19. How much will my tune change when I lose my job in a few months and then get sick and have no insurance and can't find another job because of the state of the economy? If no economic theory is going to prevent a major downturn from a pandemic then that means the best we can do is be prepared to absorb it and bounce back. I see major gaps with idea that complete capitalism will be the best at the absorbing part even if it is the best at bouncing back.