[chii]

those lockdowns prevented many deaths. It has a cost, but i would imagine that cost is worth it in the initial stages.

And overall, the pandemic was handled acceptably OK (there were a few problems and mistakes, such as the cruise ship ruby princess).

Now most of the population had their vaccination, and re-opened, the spread of covid is starting to be large, but the amount of people getting seriously sick and needing hospital is not that high.

It's pointless trying to bring politics into public health - doing so is a sign of political agenda. Comparing a country's pandemic handling to another's, and using the political system as the argument for efficacy (or lack thereof), is just a means to further one's political ideology and not for furthering public health.

[perilunar]

Public health is always political, firstly because it relies on taxpayer funding, but more importantly here, controlling pandemics requires restrictions on individual liberties.

We can (and should) debate the merits and necessity of lockdowns, mask wearing, etc., but to argue that the government has no right to restrict liberties is somewhat disingenuous — governments have always had the right and power to quarantine.

[chii]

Just because something relies on public funding doesn't make it political.

Public health is one of those. The overwhelming goal is to reduce health problems from becoming so large that infrastructure fails to handle it, as well as prevent death and suffering as a result.

If quarantine is the way to do it, then it makes sense to enforce it. If vaccination is required, then so be it, and the taxpayers foot the bill.

It has nothing to do with political ideology, left, or right, green or brown.