what if the measures you take because of COVID kill more than 0.024% of the population should you still take those measures?
How many people have died because they couldn't get life saving elective procedures?
How many deaths will be attributed to the economic slow down?
As a counterpoint though I must also ask:
How many people have NOT died because of reduce automobile travel? Or from COVID19?
No general health checkups, no doctor visits are allowed
No screening for cancer, no screening for TB
No "elective" surgeries may be performed (note how everything other what would kill you tomorrow is called "elective")
Depression,
Food security,
Reduced exercise, reduced stimuli
Tens of millions of kids not vaccinated, shall I continue?
Here, the NHS repeatedly asks people with problems that would normally require a visit to A&E (ER) to do so. They really do have capacity to deal with cancer, heart attacks, stroke, etc in a safe way. There are entire wards and buildings that are segregated and "clean" of COVID-19 for this purpose.
Elective is a funny old word and is a bit more nuanced than you imply. Some elective surgeries here are still going ahead.
The list you provide is a starter for 10 of things that are and will go wrong for a long, long time but it is what seems to happen when a massive world wide pandemic strikes. This is a world war where everyone is near enough on the same side.
These are side effects of the "safety" measures such as "shelter in place" and lockdowns.
I feel that you are side tracking the discussion. The original topic here is that a disease that causes 0.024% IFR should not be addressed with measures that cause higher deaths in a different way.
You misread the report because it puts the ifr at 0.63% (and that's going to be higher because they omit some deaths).