Cute. You were the one who said I wasn't looking at the big picture and then only mentioned Switzerland. And yes, there is confusion, because the big picture should have involved locally appropriate solutions and not a global panic.
Why is nobody willing to agree that some measures were necessary, but that they should have been based on local data and needs? While a lockdown might have been justified in NYC and similar, it was not elsewhere, including Switzerland, where the healthcare system was not maxed out at all, ever, Even at the height of the pandemic. Data shows that the spread in CH was already slowing down thanks to the cancellation of large events and people working from home. The lockdown was not necessary.
Originally, the discussion was about flattening the curve in order not to overwhelm healthcare systems. Then someone somewhere changed it to "erradicating" the virus, which was from day one never an option. ALL scientists agreed that this virus would stay with us and eventually mutate into a regular seasonal cold virus. So if the curve was flattening in places with moderate measures, why did they still go into lockdown? Think about it.
Also to your other comment: Of course we want to be informed. But does every bit of unconfirmed and often speculated piece of information have to be flung around as if it were the absolut truth? Because that's what happened.
But yeah, don't read articles that challenge your view. All you are doing is telling me that I am wrong, but you have not made a single actual argument. Again, cute! Hopefully you never have to wake up from your Dornröschen sleep.