> "Well, you know, except for all the people not getting the virus due to reduced transmission."
well, you know, except that that's popular (political and media) dogma, not scientific truth. many things can theoretically reduce transmission and it's far from certain that a nominal and arbitrary lockdown (as US states have employed) in as complicated a system as a society actually does so, especially when many mitigations are occurring simultaneously and haphazardly, and none are tested for efficacy in isolation because it'd be unethical to do so.
the null hypothesis there is that lockdowns don't change the outcome appreciably, and that has not been rejected conclusively by any means.
well, you know, except that that's popular (political and media) dogma, not scientific truth. many things can theoretically reduce transmission and it's far from certain that a nominal and arbitrary lockdown (as US states have employed) in as complicated a system as a society actually does so, especially when many mitigations are occurring simultaneously and haphazardly, and none are tested for efficacy in isolation because it'd be unethical to do so.
the null hypothesis there is that lockdowns don't change the outcome appreciably, and that has not been rejected conclusively by any means.