You assertion that others take a more evidence based approach has no factual basis. You're just making things up.
Sweden also doesn't recommend the flu vaccine for most people. They recommend it for those over 65 and for those in risk groups (i.e. underlying conditions). That's it. Whereas the US recommends the flu vaccine for anyone over 6 months of age unless there are contraindications. How do you explain the difference?
Is it because the flu vaccine has become a political dogma in the US?
Is it because we're wailing and gnashing out teeth?
It is because we're ignoring evidence in the US?
Give me an explanation and then juxtapose it with COVID.
The reality is that we have the same evidence as Sweden and the rest of Europe regarding influenza and the flu vaccine, but we've made different policy decisions based on that evidence. The reasons the US recommends the flu vaccine for everyone and Sweden doesn't vary, but include:
It's a simpler policy. If you're targeting young children, the elderly, pregnant women, high risk groups, etc. you're quickly getting to 70%+ of the population. At that point it's simpler to just suggest everyone get vaccinated so you don't have to worry about people parsing the guidance.
Access is simpler in the US. When the US adopted this policy, vaccines were available in US pharmacies but that wasn't the case in lots of European countries where you had to visit the doctor to get a vaccine. The access restrictions impacted the European policies.
Impact is different in the US. In the US, the vast majority of working adults do not received paid sick leave and will go to work even if they are sick. This is not the case in Sweden and other European countries. This means a virus will spread more easily in the US. So we put our dollars towards vaccines to prevent spread while Sweden puts their dollars towards sick leave.
We have different public policy recommendations because we operate in different complex systems of public/private health with different tradeoffs in prevention, access, treatment, etc. It's reductive and misleading to claim one approach is "evidence based" and the other is not. I suspect you know that are attempting to mislead others intentionally.