I honestly have no idea of how Matthew Winkler reached the conclusion that quantitative easing worked in his article at Bloomberg. More precisely, don’t you need to state what QE was trying to accomplish and whether it was worth accomplishing before deciding whether it worked? The “economy’s robust health” he points to as indication of QE’s efficacy only took place after QE ended in 2014. Does causality usually work that way?
I think good arguments can be made that quantitative easing produced headroom during which the economy could recover or that it satisfied public demand that something be done. I’m not sure either of those should be characterized as “working”.
He also completely ignores all of QE’s secondary effects and fails to quantify them. All of this sounds like reasoning from conclusion to evidence to me.