I dunno, you can't really have it both ways. Either a lockdown is something stricter than how people would behave in the presence of COVID, or it's not. If the argument is that the lockdown itself has a societal cost, then it's the strict version. If you go by the headlines that refer to lockdowns in the colloquial sense describe the very loose policies of "walk around, order food, wear a mask, sit outside, social distancing, but hey, indoor dining is closed so it's a lockdown", then most if not all of that cost is what would be happening anyway due to human behavior.

This is all really dumb. We need to societally backspace and come up with a couple of popular words that have clearer meanings for this stuff. Lockdown has close to zero semantic meaning.

In my original parent comment, I was more thinking of strict lockdowns. The type where - given sufficient test capacity and responsible contact tracing - a region could limit its borders and strictly lock down for four weeks, and obliterate COVID to the point they could test and trace - and dine indoors.