This paper was written by an economist, not an epidemiologist. And, if I'm looking at it correctly, a grad student at that. It's lacking some levels of detail

This paper was written by an economist, not an epidemiologist. And, if I'm looking at it correctly, a grad student at that. It's lacking some levels of detail - like it blanket says lockdowns failed, but defines lockdowns in a way that is not necessarily common use. Then admits at least one type of lockdown was successful, but states that as an aside, leaving the title and conclusion intact.