Well, since I was challenged ... well, intellectual, that's such an abused word. Let's say, given that I have a university degree in humanities, I could be in some sense. But not even close to professionally dealing with opinion leadership.
As for your statements from the previous post, well - yeah, there's a lot to agree with. But I noticed that lately you've sharpened your positions a lot and started advocating a complete stop to life (so you don't tell me I'm talking nonsense - your post from 21.11.). Regarding that, I just can't get past the fact that while you claim everything should be stopped, you still diligently post reports from your family hikes. Yes, true - according to current measures it's not forbidden. But if you claim it's the only option right now, you could be consistent and follow it yourself. But apparently not.
But I very much disagree with your indiscriminate spitting on the people. People are just a Gaussian curve and no one has managed to change that yet (and let's be honest, attempts at mass changing of people have historically usually had very tragic consequences). And with anti-corona measures it's like with all others - you'll have a small share of people who follow them to the letter, a small share who ignore them completely, and the vast majority somewhere in between. It's clear that with the right approach we can improve compliance, but first, it only goes to a certain extent, and second, it's always a matter of authority, not people.
And one more thing: you're definitely underestimating the side effects of measures to stop the economy and unemployment. Empirically it's been established that longer periods of unemployment and poverty have permanent effects on people, which show even when the situation eventually calms down. They show in long-term worse material condition, worse health, even higher mortality. In short, you might be underestimating this effect on people dying too.
And one more - I can't shake the impression that if this virus had appeared 30 or 40 years ago, when we didn't have PCR tests available, it would just be talked about as some "strange flu", for which vulnerable groups would die in somewhat higher numbers, life would go on more or less normally, measures would boil down to restrictions on mass events and maybe school closures, then it would pass and we'd live on. And unfortunately right now I don't see a better option - protect vulnerable groups as much as possible, adopt reasonable restrictions that mainly affect situations where mass transmission is possible, and wait for it to pass or for a vaccine to come. I simply don't see how a more restrictive approach could be more effective, considering all side effects.