Typical over simplified and polarised discussion of extreme positions by people with absolutely no qualifications.
The we shouldn't have had any lockdown people set p camp, the we shouldn't stop lockdown people set up camp nextdoor, and holy way ensues.
Carrying on as normal is not viable.
Being in lockdown down forever is also not viable.
Perhaps there's some middle ground with could help to mitigate the economic risk and the health risk? That doesn't involve picking an extreme side of an argument and shouting at each other angrily online?
My partner is from Taiwan. They have the procedures and tech in place to stop the spread (quarantine, tracking, tracing), and have had no lockdown. However, despite no lockdown, everybody there is very sensible and cautious about how they approach life. The highest daily infection number they had was 15 or something like that.
It wasn't an all or nothing approach that achieved that.
You're all shouting at each other, and it's completely inconsequential.
The government are the ones with the ability to commission the building of the tech and passing of the laws required to deal with this. And there are completely successful blueprints of how to achieve it sitting there waiting to be reproduced.
Shout at government for goodness sake.