If you calculate this way, you’ll lump the damage done by lockdowns with the damage done by the disease and use it as an argument for more lockdowns.
You can’t simply compare place a to place b because there are no two places that differ in just that one aspect.
You can’t just conclude lockdowns have no downsides because an unquantified ‘very few’ places had ‘lengthy restrictions on seeking medical care’. If you state that you assume that is the only reason which simply is an unfounded assumption.
A very simple basic fact is that if you lock down sports facilities, which happened in a lot of places, people will get less fit and thus more susceptible to COVID with a bigger chance of dying. I don’t think there is anyone who would deny that. But if you lump all excess mortality together, the resulting deaths will be an argument for more lockdowns.
And guess what, if you presumably describing what your favorite ‘actual experts’ are saying is handwaving, the logical explanation is that the thing you are describing is handwaving. Which, if you can look critically at the ‘actual experts’ really is quite a fair description of most of what they do.
Pretending the problems with your “solution” don’t exist and dismissing them as speculation or similar basic, hollow invalid reasoning, that is handwaving.
1. What was the total excess mortality during that period? In many countries, the official totals are significantly lower because they only include lab-verified cases or don't cover things like, say, someone dying of a heart condition they had been successfully managing before contracting COVID.
2. How many people would have died without safety measures being in place, especially people who would have been unable to get unrelated medical care they needed because the medical system is over capacity.
The second number is obviously fuzzy but it touches on the biggest factor for ending it in my opinion: vaccination rates. If you have a high percentage of the population vaccinated, you are still going to see spread but that shifts it closer to something like influenza where you might still want additional measures for some high-risk activities (e.g. indoor dining without good ventilation) but you're not looking at ICUs being flooded. The current vaccines appear to give something like an order of magnitude reduction in that risk so those are what I'd tie re-opening to those rates.