It is not possible because it is not possible to arrive at the stance via logic.
If not for the marketing campaign; certainly if not for the "original sin" of Italy's lockdown; we wouldn't even be speaking about this.
If coronavirus were highly transmissible ebola it would make sense. It's just not, most of us know tens or hundreds of people who've had it at this point (the UK has a _confirmed_ case rate of over 17%).
The original “lockdowns” were literally good for some businesses. Conventions and restaurants would have failed (they can’t survive on 10% attendance) but can’t get out of their vendor contracts without the government canceling for them.
Attendance dropped due to lockdowns and the fear campaign.
I was there, remember? The pubs were rammed, Boris started saying "don't do X", numbers decreased a lot, he said "we make this legal now", the world stopped.
I'm bored of debating this now so whatever, all I get online is a stream of trolls. Good luck.
I’m sorry you live in the UK. That must be very difficult for you.
In other places we weren’t nearly so concerned about shutting down pubs; actually the bad case that often happened in the US was leaving bars open (for tax revenue) but closing schools (because parents and teachers are more neurotic than bar goers).
Still I haven’t met a whole lot of people complaining they weren’t allowed to work. Our stimulus worked quite well there.
I don’t think lockdowns are necessary or reasonable in 2022 but at least, as someone temporarily in the UK, I’ll be able to get out of my local family trying to make me see some ridiculously quaint British thing called a “panto”.
