So your premise is if we had done absolutely nothing we would be better off? That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, when lockdowns stopped the deaths would have stopped or rapidly slowed down, but they certainly haven't.
The lockdowns are unrelated to the leaders of those two states arbitrarily deciding to using private nursing homes to store patients; homes that didn't have individual rooms or isolation areas. The patients could have literally been sent anywhere else, like the massive emergency shelters in NYC that were totally empty and unused.
The WHO is already telling all nations the lockdowns need to end. There is little to no scientific evidence they've done anything at all! So really, they've likely only done harm and zero good.
I can't find a source for that claim, would you mind sharing one?
> We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/who-official-urges-...
Honestly, every news organization is continually contradicting themselves at this point. Hell, the New York Times contradicts their own headlines in the same articles!
You seem like a smart person and I'm sure you can get the downsides of things like organized disinformation campaigns, the resulting impact on vaccine hesitancy, and the second-order effects like avoidable increases in measles, eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7590343/
If you could make more of an effort to communicate your ideas in a cooperative rather than an adversarial fashion that'd be great.