> Based on the numbers that were reported,

And there's the reason testing to get seroprevalence data is so important, because what follows that sentence is pure speculation.

> If you compare internationally, you can find similar patterns in countries that mostly managed to avoid COVID in 2020 and 2021 before succumbing to Omicron.

Again,

- Japan had no internal lockdown

- International travel still occurred

- Contact tracing does not work in a pandemic, especially one for a respiratory virus that has already spread[1], closing the barn doors after the horse has bolted is not a valid proposition as actual seroprevalence testing showed in early 2020 that contradicted official figures:

> Results: ... These numbers were 396 to 858-fold more than confirmed cases with PCR testing in Kobe City.

> Conclusions: Our cross-sectional serological study suggests that the number of people with seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in Kobe, Japan is far more than the confirmed cases by PCR testing.

There are more of these types of study[2][3], if you care to look, that hint more that heavily at the reality.

> Results: We estimated that as of December 31, 2021, 3.07 million (CrI: 2.05-4.24 million) people had been infected in Japan, which is 1.77 times higher than the 1.73 million reported cases. Our meta-analysis confirmed that these findings were consistent with the intermittent seroprevalence studies conducted in Japan.

and

> In conclusion, our cross-sectional serological study suggests that the actual number of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Kobe, Japan was estimated to be lower than our previous study, yet was more than the confirmed cases by PCR testing.

Lockdown logic is not valid, in theory or reality. Stay slim, stay active and your country too can remain largely unaffected[4], in a way that is statistically significant - to the point it hits one over the head with a hammer - and backed up by actual evidence, unlike lockdowns and masks.

> There was a consistent dose‒response association across lower physical activity categories, with the strongest association comparing the always active with the always inactive category. Patients in the always inactive category (median EVS≤10 minutes/week) had 91% higher odds of hospitalization (OR=1.91; 95% CI=1.68, 2.17), 139% higher odds of a deterioration event (Appendix Figure 2, available online) (OR=2.39; 95% CI=1.94, 2.94), and 291% higher odds of death (OR=3.91; 95% CI=3.01, 5.07) than patients in the always active category.

and from[5], the most succinct and blunt way to put it:

> Is overweight associated with the severity of COVID-19 and the need for hospital treatment?

> Yes.

The figures speak for themselves. Worth a read, I highly recommend it.

Finally, this assertion of yours is patently false:

> but fewer deaths from Omicron, largely due to existing immunity.

South Africa has entered the chat.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33898863/#article-details

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35961504/#article-details

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9191319/#main-c...

[4] https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(22)00526-8/ful...

[5] https://www.worldobesity.org/resources/resource-library/covi...