There is an angle to all of this that I believe is being missed. Lockdown governors probably did not save lives, despite many claiming that they did. They either caused more deaths or at minimum moved deaths from one demographic to another. (1/x)

Why did they cause more deaths? Two reasons, one of which is obvious and the other one is subtle. The obvious one is that lockdowns meant higher SES staying home while lower SES "essential workers", who are generally in poorer health on average, going to work more. (2/x)

So, while people thought they were eradicating the disease by staying home, they forced more low-wage workers go to work to feed them because now food, groceries, etc. had to be delivered. This created higher risk for people who are in generally poorer health. (3/x)

Besides, those people went to work without other preventive measures being taken, because the panacea was lockdown. If masks work, they didn't even have that. Because we were already doing something, we did not focus on how to stay open and also stay safe. (4/x)

The subtle reason is that the haphazard closure of all the businesses created an adverse reaction in a large portion of the population, especially after the initial fear subdued. People who would be on board with reasonable measures now became resistant to anything. (4/x)

My theory is that, instead of lockdowns, which do more harm than good, if we had focused on reasonable measures and allowed the life to go on, most people would follow those measures, and more lives would be saved. Instead, we panicked and chose the most destructive path. (5/x)

So next time someone blames someone for not wearing a mask, not distancing, etc., say this is largely lockdown governors' fault. The thesis created its anti-thesis. A moderate approach, on the other hand, would be more effective and more people would be on board. (6/6)