> I’ll be honest, having spent time reviewing the data for the better part of two years I’ll be honest, having spent time reviewing your comment for the better

> I’ll be honest, having spent time reviewing the data for the better part of two years I’ll be honest, having spent time reviewing your comment for the better part of two minutes, I'm very skeptical of your conclusions. You seem to have started with the assumptions that lockdowns are more damaging than COVID, and then cherry picked the data you've reviewed to fit that. My personal opinion is that lockdowns were a reasonable public health measure to deploy in 2020 when other public health measures were unavailable, and not enough was known about the risk and dynamics of the virus. The evidence of their effectiveness seems to be mixed. And (my personal opinion again), they aren't the right public health measure for 2021/2022. But to say lockdowns were "far more damaging" than COVID, or even came close to the direct harm from COVID simply isn't supported by the data.