Not just that, but making people commute to an office to do what they can easily do at home is fucking stupid

Aviation accounts for 2.5% of CO2 emissions and 4% of global warming.

you can buy a cheap trinket from China and have it delivered to your door for like $2.

and people had even less manners than before, driving more careless than before the pandemic, rude behaviour towards CS, doctors, nurses,,,etc.

Rich people accepting it. The majority of people are A-OK with climate saving policies and measures. It's the Epstein class that isn't because they think it will hurt their bottom line.

Even 0.00001 % can be significant depending on context. You can not just say "nah my gut tells me that's not a large number and therefore it's not significant". Missing the context of the data can lead to unfaithful and wrong interpretations. Just look at physicists how crazy they can get when they've made a 10^-7 more accurate measurement of a universal constant. Furthermore, we also have mathematical methods to investigate the significance of statistical measurements.

But enough ranting, getting to the context now:

First the numbers: depending on source, the estimate of the temporary reduction in CO2 emissions varies, but all agree that it dropped sharply. For example, the IEA estimates about 5,8 % reduction in energy related emissions IEA and notes:

Global CO2 emissions declined by 5.8% in 2020, or almost 2 Gt CO2 – the largest ever decline and almost five times greater than the 2009 decline that followed the global financial crisis.

Now the context to answer: was it significant?
Looking at various data:

• A Nature Climate Change study estimated the direct pandemic-driven effect as only about 0.01 +- 0.005°C cooling by 2030 compared with a baseline scenario. Nature That's like a drop of water on a hot stone.
• The IPCC concluded with high confidence that COVID-related emission reductions were not thought to have caused a detectable change in global temperature and were within variability. IPCC

Furthermore, emissions rebound quickly.

We can pull out even more. But to keep it short:
No. It was indeed not significant and in this case you're right.

However, it also highlighted other things: the reduction in total emissions and emission rates dropped sharply, showing that if we would've wanted to, we could have done more to fight climate change long ago. (Although the emissions were still rising overall, despite the drop.) We still can.
Secondly, numerous reports revealed significant improvements in air quality in the short amount of time. So at least in this regard, it was indeed a significant change.

Overall it wasn't totally meaningless. Although it didn't really do anything against climate change, it revealed our potential for long term impacts.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

What if I told you that we could eliminate another 10-15% if you all stopped killing for your pleasure?

Yeah, seems difficult to guess how it will affect Europe. Certainly no more ice free coastlines in the north during winter though.

But for North America it might end up much worse.

The hot water will stay in the Gulf of Mexico, so hurricanes might end up being insane.

I'm not betting, I'm hoping. AMOC collapse seems more likely in the next 50 years than northern europe figuring out how to install ac.
Gotta make the best of it. When native species die maybe we can move them a bit further south and build sanctuaries for cold-water species that were endangered globally.

No.