If it just saves one life ...

Utilitarianim's and consequentialism's main idea is that outcomes determine something's normative properties. Is a Covid lockdown good? It depends upon how outcomes aggregate. Time scales are always an issue. You also have to determine how to handle Black Swan events (improbable events that might not occur when the same scenario is repeated, even if all conditions remain the same). Fitness in biology is very concerned about similar issues. Has the covid lockdown been more of a net positive or net negative? 

Obviously one can't really judge. But as per Steven Crowder's recent lockdown protest and demand for open info suggests, people are at the point where messages of "take care if you have cold symptoms" have been recieved as much as they can, and people are legitimately demanding open information about lock down efficacy vs costs. Facebook and twitter info bans do nothing to further this conversation. Neither does legacy media's refusal to do any sort of investigative journalism on the real issues. That leads to polarization.

ALBERTA 

Here's some research me and my wife did. We were on opposite sides of lockdowns and masks in the Spring (with me being much more cautious than she was as a nurse). Lately we've switched positions and remain on opposite sides (with her now being in favour of mask mandates and its associated authoritarianisms). If it just saves one life, and the personal costs are low....

Alberta's Covid deaths are as of Oct 8 are about 283.  The Heritage Foundation shows that in the US, the percentage of deaths in the under 55 age group are about 8% of the total deaths. This means Alberta should expect to have about 23 deaths under 55 due to Covid. Most of those likley have co-morbities to them.

How does this compare to increases caused by Covid lock down dynamics occurring from suicide?

Alberta has about 550 suicides per year. Coroner information from the US suggests an increase in suicide rates of about 30% this year.  Yakima Washington says their rate is now about 30% higher that it was pre-covid.  Other hard stats aren't "hard", so we'll use a 20% figure as a "safe bet".  The distribution of suicides by under 55's is about 40%-50%. (I used absolute suicide rates and didn't adjust by % of population). 

That means we would normally expect on the order of 240-250 suicides by under 55's in Alberta. But with the 20% or so increase due to Covid, we now have an additional 50 or so.

THAT IS twice the deaths caused by the lockdown that have occurred due to Covid.

This doesn't mean a lockdown hasn't saved more lives. It certainly may have. But it does suggest one really needs to question whether the social effects of the lockdown exceed its severity. 

This doesn't account for the fairly large number of deaths that are occurring due to breaks in medical service. I know my mom had a close-enough call due to an infection that normally wouldn't have occurred without a lock down.

CONCLUSION

Failure to account for secondary deaths due to the lockdown is immoral.  This includes failure to account for the absolute devastation done to social contracts, civil life, and debt levels which down the road will certainly curtail social net spending.

If it just saves one life rhetoric is not a moral position with respect to covid lock downs. It may be that lock downs save many lives. But they also cost many lives. The best solution would seem to be one that allows freedom of choice and institutes safety measure for vulnerable populations.

Clearly the West is not doing that. I hate to say it, but I suspect Sweden provides a good case study. Victoria province in Australia, the UK, California, Minnesota and New York provide good case studies on the other side. Authoritarianism has very real consequences. It is almost always justified by "if it just saves one life" logic. Then you just ramp up to the next level of "small things need to just save one more life".

See any of JP's Awaken comedies for satire on the issue.