of course lockdowns would be terrible. Who's arguing that they wouldn't be? Few of the supporters of lockdown would argue otherwise.

You can of course debate whether they were worth the cost, but if so, be explicit about it.

>worth the cost

It depends on how you value life and death. On one end of the spectrum, there are some people who think we should stop everything if it prevents a single death. On the other end, people who think they should be allowed to do whatever they want even if it clearly endangers others.

I don't think it's a question that the former extreme won out in most places wrt covid response.

The hard truth is that we have to put a price tag on life and death, because no matter what we do, it's going to contribute to someone's death. It's not a popular answer, but it's the only pragmatic one.

> I don't think it's a question that the former extreme won out in most places wrt covid response.

My perception is rather different. Where are you speaking from, geographically?

USA, PNW specifically.