But it's hindsight, and the governments don't have the luxury of having foresight. Sure some countries might have been lucky with less restrictions and "not so bad" results, but would you want to live in a country governed by luck? I guess that's also a matter of life philosophy (being safe vs living a life with its dangers and risks).
[1] Well, I guess that's where views differs, if we reduce it to just 2 sides, the one side would rather have less government involvement, and the other side would prefer more government involvement (in the form of rules and restrictions).
You reduce anything to just two sides and you are needlessly polarizing and handicapping your own analytical abilities. If the subject matter is actually serious and not a passing fancy, this is useless.
/s
Oh, I’m sorry, I misunderstood the purpose of your weapon! It’s a peace-gun that shoots only rainbows and can’t be used to harm the Good Guys™.
Combine this with the supporters of the Republican Party, the policy of which is to hold their breath until they turn purple and pass out because the Democrats said oxygen is good, and you have a perfect storm of rednecks refusing to save their own lives while the 45th president got his vaccine and before that had a million dollars of untested antibody treatments for his COVID infection.
What I hope doesn't occur is a return to scare tactics and presenting the worst-case-scenario as the likely scenario. The amount of trust that the public health discipline burned through during the pandemic is massive. I am not arguing whether it is _right_ that this trust has vanished, just pointing out that it has.