I mean, in an ideal population set where people acted rationally, it might be. In the real world, where fear motivates counterproductive behavior, it’s hard to imagine a different scenario where you don’t slow the economy (associated harms) while trying to mitigate the virus.

Another topic on HN that showed up today was "any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious," which I would broaden to, as the kids say: "bring receipts." If you're going to implicitly (or explicitly) claim that the harms of a lockdown in response to a pandemic are greater than the harms caused by the pandemic itself, you should at least put a little effort into explaining why, and include at least some links to studies or informed discussion that support your claim. Just backing it up with "the truth of my claim should be clearly obvious to even the most casual of observers" is rarely good enough.

I don't think anyone has seriously claimed you can mitigate the virus's spread without slowing the economy, or that slowing the economy doesn't come with associated harms. The question was and remains what the balance is. Is there any evidence to back up the claim in the thread above that "the death toll from COVID lockdown is so much higher?" Higher than what? The projected death toll from no lockdown at all? When someone makes a claim about the economic damage from the lockdown, are they taking into account studies that try to project the economic damage that no lockdown would have caused?