Not for you, since you won't read this, but for others.
"In summary, we fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive NPIs in the control of COVID in early 2020."
Using SK and Sweden as evidence of it not being a requirement.
Big issue though for me, is their analysis is on number of cases, and as Trump said, if we test less we'll have less cases. This is the approach Sweden took in early 2020. You cannot meaningfully compare the data coming from Sweden, against those countries that were far more rigorous in their testing. Swedens death curve has virtually no relationship to their cases "curve". It's not reliable data for me.
South Korea didn't implement as strict measures on many businesses, but equally, they had far better track and trace (cctv tracking, credit card tracking, phone tracking etc etc), and their population reacted in a more appropriate way too. They do mention in the study that the societal reaction in SK was a significant factor in how effective just the normal interventions were.
They go on to say that decreases from the strict measurements, below 30%, cannot be excluded in some countries, larger decreases than that cannot be extracted for the data. But that's what those extra measures are looking for, that final decrease. Taking you from r=1.2 down to r=0.9 makes all the difference in terms of the pandemic, but is less than 30%, so wouldn't count for them.
So people in some areas reacted well enough to the not so extreme changes (Basically implemented a larger lockdown on themselves), and in others they didn't, and those serious lockdowns were in place didn't make 30% or greater differences, but 30% is a huge reduction in and of itself, especially after already bringing it down with previous interventions.
Sweden is a diabolical case study to use, when their testing regime clearly wasn't a true reflection of their infection status.