https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
Choosing not to do something is not the same as not being able to do it.
If our "leaders" mastered have the effort for this that we put into the war on drugs or tax cuts for the Uber rich or even farm subsidies, we'd all be in the pub by now.
Edit:
I think issues like this are difficult exactly because we cannot have a compromise solution. A compromise solution (lots of lockdown but not effective lockdown) is worst for everyone.
The WHO has been clear in their recommendation since the beginning. Building effective test/trace/isolate capacity is how you control the spread of Covid. Is there a limited and brief role for lockdowns, business closures, forced stay at home etc., yes in extreme circumstances. Long term no.
I am just paraphrasing the WHO here, and of course anyone is free to disagree with them, but they're hardly known as a paragon of right wing populism.
https://mobile.twitter.com/who/status/1316020010540625920?la...
They have been putting out publications which say this since, if memory serves, March (or maybe even earlier).
When a case occurs they close for a bit. But they're open 90% of the time. That a lot more of the time than uk pubs are managing.
I'd accept a working test and trace program too. Like Singapore used.
Don't think me greedy but... We could even do both, as we have more resources than Aus and Singapore combined and we've had a lot more time to do all this.
Once again, I have to ask: why hasn't my government managed such a thing? Could it be that it's impossible (despite Singapore having done it) or are they just too complacent?
Instead were stuck with the shitty parts of a long lockdown (closed pubs) without achieving the desired outcomes (single digit daily death rates).
Let's not forget that these mrNPIs have side effects - over 200 million people globally have been thrown into extreme poverty by them, increased deaths of despair, decimation of small business and resulting wealth concentration, etc.
There is a segment of society which believes that obviously mrNPIs are in everyone's best interest, but given that the side effects are well documented and very negative I think the burden of proof should be on the pro lockdown camp to explain why mrNPIs are the best policy intervention. The WHO recommends them only in extreme circumstances. They aren't popular with the public. Surely it's reasonable to consider alternatives (such as improving adherence to WHO recommendations) instead of invoking the alt right bogeyman and shutting down discussion as some are so quick to do.