I respect your view on this because it seems well researched, but I have a few qualms about it: 1. Using QALYs seems ok w/r to covid, but not in relation to lo

I respect your view on this because it seems well researched, but I have a few qualms about it: 1. Using QALYs seems ok w/r to covid, but not in relation to lockdowns. You say 4 days of QALYs lost per person and I'd argue that being unable to see your friends & family or do most activity is alike to being sickly (which is what is used to calculate QALYs). Maybe its not a 1:1 correspondance but lockdowns for 8 months (I'm not sure USA, I'm more familiar with Canada) have (imo) exceeded 4 days of QALYs per person by a long margin. 2. I have major issue with this line of thinking: >I can be convinced that the lockdowns were too extreme, but it'll take solid analysis and it probably won't be fully measurable until a few years from now when we see follow-on effects. It's a strongly held belief of mine that, in order to restrict the freedom of people (ala blackouts during WW2), you have to have a solid argument that what your doing not only outweigh the disadvantages, but far outweigh them. Restricting people's freedom is not like an economic decision. I believe this is what the general society has come to accept too (e.g. civil law has preponderance of evidence vs penal code which has abundance of evidence). I agree that we can grant an "emergency response" where we are unsure of the risks, but I disagree strongly that this emergency response can last this long without a very strong case/public discourse that this is significant enough to restrict freedom.