This is very true.
At this point, some may argue "but the views expressed on the forum are not representative of the wider population"; that can be true, but the vast majority of us do talk to people in settings that are well beyond this forum, and we know what the general mood is among most 'ordinary' people (which are
not those shouting the loudest on social media).
For example I've had a lot of conversations at my workplace about the virus, lockdowns, masks etc; mostly I've been speaking to our (lovely and hardworking) cleaners, who are probably about as far removed from the general demographic of forum members as you can get, and yet they have very similar views to what appears to be the majority view expressed here, and in most settings where I've had such conversations.
The people who tend to be in favour of extreme measures tend to be better off people with large houses and gardens, doing work from home jobs, who are saving money on their commute, and who don't have the interests of the younger generation and people on low incomes at heart. Some of them don't appear to get on particularly well with people at work and don't miss the atmosphere at their workplace. They are very keen to boast about how productive they are working in their gardens and how proud they are at putting others out of work by not going into the office.
Their priorities are to save time and money for themselves, get out of an office environment they dislike, and prioritise keeping as many elderly people alive for as long as possible over the aspirations of young and poorer people.
How do you define "safe"?
What do you mean by "just" save the economy?
How would you have kept these kids "safe"...?
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/lockdown-contributed-to-suicides-of-three-teenagers-228000/