I think they're referring to the stated conclusion, that this author thinks his work supports his own view that lockdown policies were too restrictive, and we should instead have more freedom/death.
Even with 20/20 hindsight, that seems like a bad take, and when the decisions were taken, we didn't have 20/20 hindsight, and we won't the next time either.
> Here’s a question: would you have preferred to live through a total travel ban and total lockdowns, like Australia’s, to save yourself 10-to-15 days of life?
> Is stopping that worth it to you?
> My personal answer is: No. It would not be worth it to me. I’d take that loss in expected lifespan, in order to travel and live freely for a couple years.
Virtually everyone's answer to that question is "no" because it's the wrong question. Phrasing this as THE question seems intellectually dishonest. There are a few better questions one might ask:
- If new diseases sweep through every so often, and each of them has a 20% chance of leading to long-term disability affecting a significant portion of the population, should we have a lock-down?
- If new diseases sweep through every so often, and a real world-wide lock-down means they don't become endemic for your children's children, is that worth it to you?
- If a disease sweeps through, and reduces the IQ of the general population by 5 points, is getting that under control worth it to you?
... and so on. I was never worried about COVID killing me. However, I was 100% in support of tight lockdowns, of the type which would have prevented COVID from becoming endemic, for reasons unrelated to my own risk of death.
Even with 20/20 hindsight, that seems like a bad take, and when the decisions were taken, we didn't have 20/20 hindsight, and we won't the next time either.