[phs318u]

Your first point would be a contributor to a surge coincident with lockdowns, although even for that cohort some/many of those would not have occurred straight away but may have occurred outside that time window (though accelerated).

None of your other points, regrettable, discomforting and painful though they were, could have caused that surge in excess deaths.

I get that you hated the lockdowns. I’d argue most people did, but that doesn’t preclude the fact that many of the people that hated them also accepted their ‘necessity’. I put that in quotes because the necessity itself may be arguable, but the fact that many people were convinced they were necessary is not.

[torstenvl]

Well. All animal studies on captivity show negative health effects. All human studies show that stress has negative health effects, and that exercise and time spent outdoors have positive health effects. To the extent that being sedentary and stressed contributed to obesity and/or high blood pressure, there is certainly a plausible causal mechanism worth further study. Additionally, there is evidence of increases in reckless driving — see https://insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/new-data-reveal-reck... — and domestic violence — see https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/shadow-pandem... .

Whether they were the right policy call or not, it's clear that drastic environment changes had drastic behavioral effects, and that the behavioral effects either provably did have, or, based on all available scientific data, probably could have had a regrettable impact on excess deaths.

As societies across the globe engage in introspection on COVID response, it's worth further research and factoring the results into their conclusions.

[phs318u]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself. What you describe re: sedentary and stressed etc, would definitely be expected to lead to an increase in deaths, however those deaths would not occur _at the time_. Many (most?) of the deaths from those types of causes would typically follow some time (possibly years) later. The cohort who would already been prone to cardiac type diseases would (I expect) mostly be sedentary or tending that way anyway, so the increase as a result of lockdowns would have been a smaller delta for them, than say for a very fit cohort (where any cardiac effects would be seen later; my guess). So while not denying this cause of excess deaths, I can't see it being the driver for a 'fast follow' surge of deaths following lockdowns. It would be (to my mind), more akin to exposure to carcinogens or radiation, where there would be a gentle rise and long-tail of excess deaths rather than most of them being in a spike/surge.

If anything, what this would imply is that we haven't seen yet the completion of excess deaths related to this era. But proving it will become increasingly more difficult as the long-tail blends into the noise.