Given that the science, apparently, since I have to take things on trust, does not validate the policies, why were the policies instituted? If the policies were little more than theatre, then how do we explain the political process that led to their institution? How did global governments precisely follow the same policies and for what reasons?
Even if the threat was real, was the response acceptable? If you are concerned about liberties, primarily, why are those liberties significant? Are they primarily purely economic or are they also aspects concerning our well being?
If the conditions that were instituted were unacceptable and inhumane, then maybe, going forward, people might consider the type of conditions, publicly, institutionally and socially, the state should be creating that allows individuals to thrive.
Even if there is a threat from a virus, is the correct response to sacrifice the conditions of our humanity?

Lockdowns happened and we're on our way out (slowly).

That's a massive assumption to make.
There are no plans to completely end the misery, the roadmap clauses allow for indefinite continuation of some restrictions and already being warned to expect more misery next autumn.

We're being told repeatedly vaccination doesnt change things.

>why were the policies instituted?
We've been through all that umpteen times. I suspect they were intended to keep people apart, since it is thought that less transmission occurs when people do not mix.

>How did global governments precisely follow the same policies
I expect they cottoned on to it as well. If people don't mix there is less transmission. For historical reasons, the vast majority of the high and middle income nations are vaguely modelled on the anglo-saxon model of "liberal democratic free market laissez faire capitalism", that we (UK and US) imposed globally after victories in two world wars, and a lengthy ideological cold war, to displace the chief rivals, fascism and communism. So it should not surprise us when nations we influenced or created enact similar policies to us.

>Even if the threat was real, was the response acceptable?
We have the option to reject at the next election. Hence it must be accepted until then. I think most people will vote to resume our "liberal democratic free market laissez faire" lives as soon as we reasonably can.

>If you are concerned about liberties, primarily, why are those liberties significant?
Since the best circumstances for living have been those which allow people to help themselves without harming others. Lately, the matter of externalities has cropped up, and it seems we have been harming ourselves and others more than we thought, by overpopulation and overconsumption. Hence we are in the midst of a Great Reset to try to rebalance the way we live to cause less harm to ourselves and others. Obviously, in a rebalance like that, formerly absolute liberties have to be reconsidered, to check what is sustainable.

>people might consider the type of conditions,
>the state should be creating that allows individuals to thrive.
yes they might consider a Great Reset to consider the best conditions to allow everybody to thrive. Proponents are using convergent opportunism to never let a good crisis go to waste. The 4th industrial revolution has started...

> Even if there is a threat from a virus, is the correct response to
> sacrifice the conditions of our humanity?
perhaps, but only temporarily until the vaccine gets rid of the immediate threat, that's an optimist forward look.

Lockdowns happened and we're on our way out (slowly).

That's a massive assumption to make.

No really. That is what Parliament's been told.

.. the roadmap clauses allow for indefinite continuation of some restrictions and already being warned to expect more misery next autumn. We're being told repeatedly vaccination doesnt change things.

I would not worry about that. If they try it, they'd stop economic growth. The reason they are shitting bricks is that about now we reach the vaccination halfway stage, which is 25 million adults. And they are very concerned that a sort of Fall of Berlin Wall exuberation might take hold amongst the young as they lift the lid. Like what happened outside Rangers Ground.

So that's why they creep so slowly along, but the 1922 Committee and the COVID Recovery Group are moving along right behind them. Graham Brady is poking them along with his bayonet, every now and again. And I see in the ZOE app plots that the fall in cases, which had faltered, has steepened again.

No really. That is what Parliament's been told.

You should try reading the roadmap.

I would not worry about that. If they try it, they'd stop economic growth. T

You're assuming they care now. They're so utterly terrified of a resurgence that no matter what the data suggests, releasing lockdown is in their view far too dangerous.

And I see in the ZOE app plots that the fall in cases, which had faltered, has steepened again.

Because ZOE did 2 things. Firstly they realised it was flagging the vaccine side effects as suspected cases so stopped that and yesterday, to smooth data noise, made the reports a 14 not 7 day average.