> I mean, the evidence is pretty clear by now isn't it?

I think the evidence is clear that it's endemic to the world (like Tuberculosis still is, with most ppl carrying a latent infection). Things are deadly in the world. As far as pandemics go, this one is about as bad as the modern world can handle...ok, some govts can handle. If economies/governments fall apart, it will run it's course as well. The bet that the entire world will lock down their borders and get vaccines every 6 mo for the rest of our lifetimes, is silly. Will corona basically be gone this year? Next year? The year after that?

It's all hand wringing theater at this point. I think there's plenty of evidence that govts are taking advantage of the situation, but that's not the same as it being a grand conspiracy to release a virus for transhumanistic purposes (to get ppl used to getting govt injection). That's also nonsense.

Isn't is plausible, if not expected, that countries with different industries and economic structures would do differently with the exact same kind of lockdown plan?

That is, a country that has a large WFH-capable population would feel less economic pain than another otherwise similar country?

And thus, maybe a swift and harsh lockdown is the best move for one country, but the cons for another would outweigh the pros? That is another country would enter an economic decline that overall costs more lives than would have been saved?

We don't know the answers to these questions, but I think we shouldn't dismiss these considerations.

I don't think the evidence is clear. There are countries that were unsuccessful with their lockdowns, and countries were numbers were decreasing (because of lockdown or other reasons is unclear).

Then there is China, whose numbers can't be trusted. And some remote island states seem to have done well. Most interesting case perhaps Taiwan (which incidentally also belongs to China).