So doing something so disruptive is better than doing nothing even if we end up with the same result anyways because... At least we did something? Even if that

So doing something so disruptive is better than doing nothing even if we end up with the same result anyways because... At least we did something? Even if that's true, I keep hearing that argument and I think I'll keep hearing it a lot in the future which makes sense as we try to justify what happened. But it's not based on reality considering that the anti lockdown side had a pretty clear plan: quarantine those most vulnerable, spend any fraction of the enormous resources we spent on locking down everything on making sure to provide for those people. That way we could've also focused the testing capacity & PPE on a lot less people, making it that much easier to isolate them from the virus. Instead of allocating thr same amount of resources regardless of how at risk someone was. You can disagree with the position but I'm not sure how you could argue that it's "doing nothing".