[tonyedgecombe]

>What then was lockdown and mass vaccination for, if not to reduce spread?

To reduce death and serious illness.

[sleavey]

...in which case, restrictions should never have been mandated, and those who looked at their personal risk and decided that going about their lives as normal was acceptable should have been allowed to do so.

And besides, in the UK the continuing lockdowns were very much sold on the hypothesis that they prevent transmission.

And before anyone replies that mandates stop hospitals being overwhelmed, read the other comments here on the load obesity, smoking, alcoholism etc. places on the health services - mandates for COVID-19 are inconsistent with our past behaviours regarding causes of hospitalisation.

[tonyedgecombe]

>in which case, restrictions should never have been mandated

Which would have resulted in more death and serious illness.

[sleavey]

You either didn't read or understand my comment, or you're intentionally choosing not to address my points, so I won't reply to you any more.

[tonyedgecombe]

I did read and understand your comment. I just chose to pick on the most obvious falsehood at the start.