The Stanford university study is the one led by John Ioannidis - I'm sure you can find it yourself, and it's been linked here several times.
I am not 'cherry picking' Sweden - it's just an obvious example. Look at the Worldometers stats and it is very obvious that there is no correlation between severity of restrictions and the outcome.
Thank you for confirming - I'll check it out, though if it's what I think it is, I'd be interested in more recent evidence either way, and where it sits within the scientific consensus.
As for Sweden, I'm aware that the graphs don't show a correlation between the severity of legal restrictions and severity of outcome. However, the case for the Swedish approach also relies on discounting three factors. The first is the role of social compliance to distancing measures which were imposed by law here. The second is the way that the Swedish government have moved towards legislating restrictions, while the third is the significantly worse - economically and in health terms - outcomes for Sweden compared to its neighbours. Factored in, I consider that the Swedish outcome is significantly less favourable than is generally presented, and that the differences (and apparent advantages) of the Swedish approach are far less clear cut than argued.
Meanwhile, I'm glad you tacitly acknowledge the inherent implausibility of simultaneously arguing that lockdown doesn't work, that vaccinations can drive results even before vaccination is effective and widespread, and that natural variability is not correlated to seasonality.