If a policy is impossible for a given country to carry out, doesn't that suggest that maybe they shouldn't try? I think most people would agree that Prohibition should have delivered several public benefits in theory, but in practice it was beyond the ability of the government to enforce, and a bad policy.
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.
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.