There's a certain narrative to downplay the actual restrictions that were here in Sweden, often in articles opposed to stricter restrictions elsewhere, even justifiably opposed.

This article is one of them.

Thing is, there is no need to downplay that Swedish government authorities did actually close down quite a few things - far beyond what the article lists - and no need to claim that the other changes which occurred were "voluntary."

The overall conclusion would still be the same - the restrictions by the Swedish authorities were nowhere near as strict as in other countries, yet without disastrous consequences.

More importantly, it wouldn't come across like the author trying to pull a fast one via a dishonest comparison, which the paper's readership wouldn't recognize as being dishonest.

If they can't get the easy parts right, why should I trust them with the hard parts?

As I concluded in my previous comment: I'm very glad the situation here wasn't like the UK's stay-at-home orders. But to characterize it as only "a ban on gatherings of over 50 people and a few rules for restaurants" where all other changes were voluntary is someone trying to sell you something shady.