Using your first sentence, and assuming arguendo that it's correct, I'll rephrase my initial question to make it more clear what I'm getting at. And I'll add supporting questions and emphasis.
How do you know that it wouldn't have been worse without the lockdown?
That the "increase" wouldn't have been even greater without the lockdown?
How can you go back in time, and do a what-if scenario?
Well without 2 earths, split in time it's impossible to say for 100% sure obviously.
But you can compare Sweden to USA and Sweden 0.06% area, NYC 0.2% area, so therefore the Sweden is doing the things that actually work and NYC is doing bullshit.
UK wise, if they'd of continued shielding then deaths would still be 10per day average, it's 400+, despite all the other measures and a 4week lockdown, few more months and everyone would of had, then safe for the shielders.
Although high odds on 2nd infections, or new covid mutation, doesn't care if you've had the 1st before, 1 or the other.
Mate next door, just tested positive, and I swear he had it back in April, all the symptoms, GF definately had it as gave it to me and I gave to others 2 tested positive, see what her test comes back as hopefully tomorrow.
Shit happens, people die sadly, but that's life, time for people to accept and just live with this as it's not that bad, it's not the Spanish Flu by a long long shot.