I am not arguing either way, what I am saying is shouting "here's what I think, prove me wrong" is not how it works. "Here's what I think, and here is the evidence" is how it works.
Lack of data can't support any claim. If we don't have good data on whether lockdowns are effective, it doesn't mean they aren't. It means we don't know. In which case we do a risk analysis, taking our uncertainty and potential benefits/drawbacks into account.
> Are you arguing your presence in society is outweighed by the mere possibility of you having a negative effect on it?
I don't consider myself absent from society. I am talking to you now, am I not? And yes, I consider my temporary suffering to be outweighed by potentially permanent suffering of myself or someone else.
Interesting idea, but false in this case unless you are arguing that lockdowns are and will be, in perpetuity, the status quo.
> this is still better than me or somebody else getting sick with god-only-knows what long term complications, which we don't have data for one way or another
Are you arguing your presence in society is outweighed by the mere possibility of you having a negative effect on it?