That is the problem right there. People think they know it better and ignore the rules. In the end this only leads to more stricter rules and more enforcement. If the government can trust people to adhere to a few simple rules then the lockdowns don't need to be that strict.
Who says the lockdowns have to be this strict to begin with? Ok, so not a bad move back when we didn't know jack about this thing.
But let's put that behind us, now look at those lockdowns, are they the
only way forward? Are they the
best way forward?
Many governments are still talking months worth of lockdowns at a minimum, destroying entire economies.
Is there a better way?
Radical left field thinking here, but perhaps reallocating all the current police effort fining young and healthy people sitting on a beach or in park, to, I don't know, maybe protecting the most vulnerable?
Huge numbers of deaths have come from retirement homes and villages, have any police been allocated to protect them? Just a thought...
The thing with the lockdowns is that we'll never
really know how much they contributed to the drop in cases, as there has been effectively no control group. e.g. All of Australia was pretty much locked down at once from the federal level. That makes it very convenient in terms of political liability to keep it going for as long as possible. Because at the end of all this the politicians can always say it was the lockdowns that stopped it all and it's something that we had to to have for so long to save all those lives, and there is likely going to be little to data to contest that argument. At least not on a local level.