Actually I was removing the editorializing in the original. It's plainly the restrictions and response which caused this financial hardship, not the virus itself. The whole "because of Covid" framing (which is extremely common in articles like this one) is used to push the narrative that there were no possible alternatives, or that the pandemic response was free of significant costs and downsides.
What effect would not having had the restrictions, and rather letting COVID run rampant, have on people’s savings? (This is, of course, ignoring lives lost and health consequences for the survivors.)
Ignoring the false dichotomy you set up for a moment, Sweden provides a good example of just how disastrous it would have been. i.e. not very.
Why is it ignoring that?
Those are massive financial variables, minimum.
Oh no argument there. I was trying to go one step at a time.