It’s a clear distinction.
That why many people are saying ‘Sweden didn’t have a lockdown’.
What they mean is ‘Sweden didn’t have a legally mandated set of restrictions’.
This is just a true statement.
The fact that the Swedish government made recommendations that Swedes followed without using force of law is interesting, and informative.
True for some people, not for others. I have talked to many people who have repeated "Sweden didn't have a lockdown" and think that means Swedes didn't change their behaviour significantly. They are surprised, even disbelieving, when I point out the quite significant restrictions most Swedes have complied with. These people were misled by news reports using the term "lockdown" the way you do.
Whether or not defining the term "lockdown" differently is the solution, there needs to be some improvement in the way we write about this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25119518
Which would imply no lockdown by any definition.
That means defining lockdown as "government restrictions legally enforced" doesn't make sense. Defining it as "government restrictions widely complied with" would make a lot more sense. And by that definition, Sweden has apparently had a lockdown.