There was a very high expectation that the vaccines could be developed as the technology was already available. However if, improbably, they had all failed then a reassessment would have become necessary by which time more information would have been available.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Both this and the other article you reference draw on the same source. Which is an analysis written by economists, not medical scientists. It is said to be peer reviewed but I cannot see by whom. It was published in early 2022 and is a comprehensive review of all the attempts at answering this question, which unsurprisingly reach different conclusions. Their own conclusion, that there is no evidence that lockdowns impacted mortality, does not appear to be borne out by the statistics contained within the data. It seems to me to be a completely subjective conclusion.

The book comes from the right wing political activist group calling themselves the “Institute of Economic Affairs” who pose as a think tank. They have long been campaigning against lockdowns.

I do not believe it is possible, even now, to reach general conclusions on this. It depends on each and every set of circumstances in each and every country. It depends on the availability of health services, population density and the behaviour of the people.

What must not be forgotten is that mortality is not the sole consideration when deciding if it is necessary to lockdown to suppress the spread of infectious. Ensuring that the health service can still function is also very important.

No doubt this analysis will be presented, along with others, at the enquiry, its conclusions reviewed to see if they apply to our circumstances and if there is anything useful to be learned from them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It isn't a waste of time when it's relevant. How many more hundred billion could the country pay out to stay locked down? The availability of a new vaccine was a gamble the government couldn't afford to continue.

As it’s impossible to change anything with hindsight it is 100% a waste of time and energy. All you can do is learn lessons from the experiences you have had, which is exactly what we are doing.

The vaccines weren’t new. This a wasn’t blue sky development. The technology existed. What was required was the time to engineer the precise ones, to test them for safety and scale up the production. The world could not afford not to continue.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

What time will tell is the reason the world closed down.

Personally the most likely explanation seems to be that the original virus came from the Wuhan lab. It's presence feels, to me, to be too coincidental for it to have come from any other source but I think it was accidental.
As far as lockdown conspiracy theories go the only one that makes any sense to me is that governments used the opportunity to try and introduce or reinforce cash free economies. I have no evidence for this idea other than the fact that this would have traceability/tax benefits and save money by not having to produce and transport cash money. Also the fact that Sweden is already virtually cash free so could be used as a test sample. As I say this is just a possibility but if I had to choose one it feels at least possible.