I'll try with a different tone.

The intention of keeping freedom and not harming the economy was IMNSHO not matched by that effect and the discrepancy wasn't really surprising.

The authorities where I live decided to keep more open than I considered wise, and not much later closed a lot of sports, for example. The effective choice was freedom now against freedom later, even if the intention was to choose more freedom rather than less.

Yes, my freedom over the course of almost 1.5 years was adversely affected because we couldn't handle a month without it.

And yes, the economy was adversely affected because most small businesses were shuttered for half a year and swaths of them went out of business since we could not bear closing everything down for a sixth of that time period.

Edit: Please explain to me how swallowing real estate, employee, and supply chain expenses for 30 days would have been more difficult or less preferable to the splintered schedule of mandated closings over a far longer time period.

The importance of freedom and the economy are not in dispute. The point is that both would have suffered less in the long term if "draconian" lockdowns had been implemented in the short term. It's game theory, and NZ chose the winning strategy while much of the world chose the losing one.

>This is an absurd fantasy that couldn’t have been possible in the real world.

China and the countries of Oceania did just this and have largely suppressed COVID without MRNA vaccines. China has a massive, porous land border. They've protected themselves from inbound infection by quarantining all visitors on arrival.

> every single country

The pandemic is estimated to have cost the world >$16 trillion already. Now politicians are telling us we will have to live with it forever.

For that price, we literally could have paid every human on earth $2,000 to shelter in place for 4 weeks.

What others did is not fantasy but possibility. If your leaders cannot deliver that, replace them.