In essence it says that you either have to accept:
(i) Collapse is a real process and thus measurements are special in some sense. There are physical systems that count as "observers" in some capacity (ii) There is no collapse ever, just the illusion of collapse (iii) Quantum Mechanics does not describe objective reality, just a single agent's expectations of experiments. Attempting to combine the predictions of different agents to construct an objective picture of what is going on is not possible. (iv) Quantum Mechanics is wrong in certain situations involving macroscopic systems
Repeating my list above:
(a) Space is structured in such a way that the signal can pass without going faster than light, e.g. there are loads of mini-wormholes everywhere (b) The signal moves faster than light (discussed above) (c) Every time you make a measurement there are several worlds created (d) The particles send signals not faster than light, but back in time (e) There is no objective mechanical/mathematical/physical explanation of these coincidences between the particles values
(ii) leads to Many-Worlds or a nonlocal field [(b) or (c) in my list above] (iv) is forced on (a) and (d)
As mentioned above, options (a)-(d) already have problems with fine tuning, so most physicists accept (e).
Thus this result forces them to take on either (i) or (iv). There are special physical systems that observe or Quantum Mechanics doesn't give an objective picture of reality, just what an agent should expect. In either case, the observer/agent cannot be removed.
I fear in the technical back-and-forths with myself the main point might be swamped.
To summarise: There is a strong likelihood that there are aspects of nature admitting no objective mathematical description. The best one can do mathematically is probability estimates on how likely they are to do certain things with the equipment you use to interact with them. The theory of these estimates is what we call Quantum Mechanics. It is not about the objects themselves, just estimates on the type of impressions they will leave on our senses and experimental equipment.
For a specific example, take what we call an electron. Normally it's said to be a particle with a certain amount of spin and we spot it at various positions in atoms, moving at various speeds.
What this is saying is that in reality there is just "something" that in certain situations (for example with the right experimental equipment) can be discussed as having an angular momentum, position and speed. However it never makes sense to talk about all three at once and also that ultimately it doesn't really have any of them. Whatever properties it does possess are non-mathematical.