The dichotomy being presented (e.g. "state intrusion" vs "vulnerable people die") is not a genuine representation of the choice we have/have had.
There are far more variables involved than that. The most obvious counterpoint is that after about March 2020 (e.g. zero-covid off the table) there is no realistic situation in which 80 year olds can just go to the pub and not be at high risk.
I think he's upset that we turned civilization upside down for a virus, which in the grand scheme of things is a moderate problem, but not for air pollution or climate change, which are cataclysmic problems.
In 2020 we didn't know exactly what things would look like if we didn't do lockdowns. The situation looked dire, and we reacted the way we did to give ourselves time to protect people while we assessed the situation, and made proper protections available.
The lockdowns weren't permanent (or even that long, to be honest). The protective measures we have in place aren't very stringent (in most of the world). If we hadn't done what we had done, the loss of life would have been considerably worse, and even with the choices we made, it was still quite bad.
I understand that you're unhappy with having a couple years of your life inconvenienced, but you're very much not showing empathy with those who've lost considerably more than you, and aren't really putting much consideration into how much more could have been lost without your inconvenience.
I'm not unhappy about my own personal situation, I'm unhappy because I think that the response was net negative overall.
The relevant variable is not my or your own personal situation but the sum total of all of the experiences of the people in the country.
I disagree that not supporting restrictions is not showing empathy with those who have lost loved ones from coronavirus. I think that this is a false dichotomy.
