You misrepresented facts in this piece:

From the study you cited about mortality rates:

"Given issues with mortality recording, it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure."

In other words, that number is unreliable. Additionally, that study was published in May; several months have now passed.

Your “fear and despair” line says thousands have died from lockdown. There is no evidence of ‘deaths of despair’, a still-controversial idea that emerged from trying to study the effects of recessions on mortality. This is another misrepresentation of facts.

“The exact same percentage of the population will get COVID, lockdown or no lockdown.”

This is not true. Mandated social distancing reduces transmission. That is well-understood and has been used for centuries. Why do you think quarantines were invented?

“Tegnell won.”

This is also not true. Sweden, despite having a robust health care system and low comorbidity rate endured one of the highest death rates in Europe, akin to much less healthy Britain. It’s neighbors in Denmark, Finland, and Norway did much better with lockdown with far fewer deaths. Compare apples to apples.

“kills fewer children than lightning strikes”

Please don’t cite the Sun. It is a tabloid. But school closures in many places make sense, not necessarily for saving children (though that IS a real threat) but because of the role they play in transmission. Israel opened them too widely and too early; now it's in another COVID crisis.

Overall, this piece reeks of false critical thinking — a veneer of questioning, but not designed to arrive at truth but instead meant to prove the bias of the writer. Sure, we all do that when we write on Medium, a safe place to shout into the void. But we shouldn’t be picked up by RealClearPolitics when we do so.