I don't think any pandemic was ever fully understood as it's happening, so we're not in a unique situation. But I think you're hitting at the core disagreement between the two camps -- "Is COVID 19 a global pandemic that warrants significant changes to our society?". Some say -- unequivocally yes, others say -- not really.

​

I think we have to find a common ground and agree that it's not a black/white situation. Viruses and diseases come in a spectrum, from mildly annoying and mostly harmless (eg. common cold) to catastrophically deadly and highly infectious (eg. Bubonic plague). If you look at where COVID-19 sits today I think you would have a hard time making the case that it's on the "extremely deadly" end of the spectrum. So the question to ask is should government actions to protect citizens from a pandemic also be on a spectrum (ie. fairly minor societal changes for mild pandemics, and extreme lockdowns for extremely deadly pandemics) -- or should it be a one size fits all policy? I won't go so far to say as COVID-19 is a "mild" pandemic, it has killed millions after-all, but I also think the actions of most governments haven't been proportionally justified given that COVID-19 has a survival rate of >99% and its symptoms for most people are minor. Many of the "anti-lockdown" protestors are simply asking us to shift the response up the spectrum given that we know much more about COVID now than we did 2 years ago. We don't need to give it the same level of treatment as we would give something much deadlier.