Well, yes... Assuming the mortality figure of 1-2% is correct, no lockdowns would lead to a few billion infections worldwide, which would lead to 50-100 million

Well, yes... Assuming the mortality figure of 1-2% is correct, no lockdowns would lead to a few billion infections worldwide, which would lead to 50-100 million dead. This is roughly what world war II caused in the span of 5 years or so of planetary warfare. Second to that, hundreds of millions more would need to be hospitalised. You'd essentially see any other healthcare be completely overwhelmed, e.g. cancer treatment or conceiving a child in the hospital. You'd see tons of excess mortality from these second hand effects as well. Third, in general, and in particular without proper care, you'd see many people suffer permanent organ damage. We see this to be true for many who have recovered from Corona, but with permanently damaged lung or liver capacity. Not to mention the trauma and PTSD for hundreds of millions even those who survive, who'll have experienced what it's like to (nearly) suffocate for weeks. Experiences like these would occur in every community and would likely completely shatter certain individuals, families even communities, their religious beliefs, their sense of security etc. The notion we'd let something like this happen in the 21st century. It'd be a paradigm change in our thinking for many of us who believed our live, societies, governments etc were stable and provided order. Situations like these would be ripe for abuse by political or religious extremists, violence, scape-goating etc.