You should have dug deeper.
First up, it wasn't a study either commissioned or endorsed by John Hopkins.
That's a little deceptive but plenty of valid studies do this.
Secondly, only one of the authors works at JH.
Unless the others got degrees from DeVry, I'm not worried about it.
Thirdly, he and the other two authors are not medical experts but economic ones.
Eh....this is kind of a valid concern? It depends upon whether or not their data set for covid deaths prevented is pretty rigorous and reliable (and comes from the medical field). I'm inclined to think that it does.
To put it another way....let's imagine a group of virologists do a study showing that the effects of the lockdown were positive.
Would you find it suspicious that they didn't include any economists?
Fourthly, it's not a peer reviewed study. It's a self described 'working paper'.
Ok...you should have started with this.
I agree it's not a valid study. There's no point in discussing it before peer review, because it's likely going to change. It may become a valid study...but it isn't one now.
The problem with the whole "we saved 100k lives" with the lockdown argument is that it's as if the only effects of the lockdown considered are viral contagion spread.
Those aren't the only effects.
Pandemic effects may have lowered baby IQs, study says | EdSource
It's hard to say just how profound that might be. I don't know if it's something that can be improved....but I do know that if our schools remain as they are, it won't improve.
It's entirely possible that the lockdown has made a significant number of an entire generation....dumber.