I believe this is a semantic argument. From a layman's perspective, that is essentially all it was. Consider the following.
DIFFERENCES From your link:
I don't see a whole lot here that says that it was any different from the common flu in any meaningful sense. From a practical perspective, it was a severe flu.
You can pick nits all you want. And you'd probably be right. But from a layman's perspective of the effects for over 90% of the population, these items listed above indicate that the effects we see as patients resemble the flu with heightened levels of severity in several ways. And the level of severity is not sufficient to really treat this with much more scrutiny than a common influenza virus.
These are good points. But they are outliers. They primarily affect those who already have health issues especially those who are already hospitalized. And some claim that was only for people who got the vaccine. (This is unconfirmed, of course. But we really don't know.)
But the flu also causes more dangerous symptoms in the elderly and those who are already weakened or hospitalized. But the "more symptoms" are simply "different". Whether they are "more deadly" is part of my conceding that it was a "stronger than average level."
These few differences may or may not be enough to induce the average person to consider additional protocols. But I consider the shutdown of the entire world to be overkill. And the grift that ran rampant throughout the entire era is enough for me to say: That was too much!
Wouldn't it be great if it were possible to actually get the real numbers of deaths and hospitalizations so we could compare? That would tell us volumes about how much of it was hype and how much was necessary. But because of the way they funded everything, the level of grift during those years caused it to be greatly exaggerated. So, we may never know.