Aye, I'll admit not many people may have died from loneliness, if you can find me figures I'll accept them. Loneliness is associated with an increased risk of certain mental health problems, including depression, anxiety and increased stress.I'm sure there are more reasons why the lockdown has caused deaths. But I hear you say provide some figures! Ok, hopefully this will butter your parsnips.
You brought up loneliness killing people, so you should provide those figures, not a bunch of other stuff!
Fundamentally if you want to make a case for lockdown being worse than letting the virus run its course, you'll have a hard time doing that. The main reason is as
@McLaren says - COVID has many impacts on what people and hospitals do regardless of the lockdown.
Up to 35,000 extra cancer deaths due to lock-down. Just type that into google maybe you'll find one without a paywall. But you will find many.
Cancer
screening and treatment was put on hold.
Cancer Research UK estimated that 290,000 people missed cancer follow ups, indicating that around 20,000 current cancer sufferers, who could otherwise have accessed treatment, remain untreated or possibly unaware of their cancer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53300784
Scientists suggest there could be at least 7,000 additional deaths - but in a worst case scenario that number could be as high as 35,000.
...
In a worst case scenario, if delays continue, there could be 35,000 additional cancer deaths within a year.
The "could be" 35,000 extra cancer deaths over a year is from a modeling study, and is the worst case scenario. To use a similar measure for COVID deaths we'd have to compare it to the predicted 500,000 deaths from COVID as modeled by Imperial College before the lockdown.
The outlook for cancer patients would have been even worse without a lockdown suppressing COVID cases, the hospitals would've faced some very bleak choices.
The
demands of the lockdown regime also saw ambulance response times increase significantly. Most notably
in London, where they more than trebled for the most seriously ill
"category 2 patients," including heart attack and stroke victims.
First, that's not a "lockdown regime", it's what's needed when you have a deadly respiratory virus around. Second, most of March was not in lockdown, so the average figures in that Daily Mail scare piece are actually mostly from before the lockdown. So, no, not due to lockdown.
People with heart and circulatory diseases are already at increased risk of dying from Covid-19 … At the very least, around 28,000 planned inpatient heart procedures have been deferred in response to the Covid-19 outbreak in England alone … If hospital investigations and procedures are delayed too long, it can result in preventable permanent long-term complications, such as heart failure. All these will be classed as Covid deaths, unless Matt Hancock grows a spine.
https://healthbusinessuk.net/news/05062020/thousands-heart-procedures-delayed-pandemic
Of the people who found it more difficult to access medical treatment from a healthcare professional during the coronavirus crisis: 41 per cent said they’d had a planned test, surgery or procedure postponed or cancelled; and 48 per cent said a lack of available face-to-face appointments was a reason for this.
On top of this, anxieties remain about whether patients should seek medical help. 42 per cent said they didn’t want to put extra pressure on the health service, while 27 per cent said they were concerned about the risk of developing the virus in a healthcare setting.
So 41% had treatments or tests postponed or canceled, while somewhere between 27% and 42% were actually somewhat relieved that they were.
The outlook for heart patients would have been even worse without a lockdown suppressing COVID cases, the hospitals would've faced some very bleak choices.
edit: about classification, I've already said it needs sorting out, and Hancock has ordered a review. However, there is no evidence that the current practice has noted significant numbers as COVID when death was caused by something completely different. In fact, until a few weeks ago you'd be lucky to get tested unless you were already ill in hospital with suspected COVID. With UK daily deaths from COVID currently in single figures, it cannot be changing the cumulative death figure significantly.
The statistics from a YouGov poll for the charity Action on Addiction also showed an increase in addictive behaviour in young adults and children as young as 12, during the lockdown. Some 4% of those questioned have a close relative between the ages of 12 and 25 for whom this is the case, which the charity said would amount to more than two million children and young people on a national scale.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...-na-longtail&dclid=CIr2hIP-2eoCFXL01QodF34AGg
I have no reference point for what is a normal level of "addictive behaviour in young adults and children as young as 12", in other words, teenagers+, but I can assure you it would not be 0%. With teenagers and drink, it's also not a given that addictive behaviour leads to a dysfunctional addict - if the questions are loaded, e.g. "is he/she drinking more than before?", then that doesn't necessarily mean addict levels of drinking. Far too many unknowns with this to draw any conclusion, yet it certainly is not the deaths from loneliness you referred to.
In summary, as bad as these things are, none of them support your stance that the lockdown is worse than the virus, when talking about rich countries such as the UK. All of the other possible extra deaths you highlight are due to COVID cases taking away healthcare capacity, and not due to lockdown.
Let's finish with a quick look at the difference between effective lockdowns (EU) and where it fell apart (NA), thanks to people like you, at least in USA.
(And no, it's not 'more testing'; EU has increased testing as well).