I don't fully agree, some overreactions were simply crowd management pointed at lowest denominator, or most stupidly behaving individuals. In France, one of bas

I don't fully agree, some overreactions were simply crowd management pointed at lowest denominator, or most stupidly behaving individuals. In France, one of bastions of freedom (liberte, at least on paper) there was a long period when people could only go 1km from their permanent residence. Even if you were a sporty person, wanted to keep fit, and did completely alone with absolutely 0 risk trail running in the alps around you, you were breaking the law. Cops could get nasty if they caught you. Neighboring Switzerland never applied similar restrictions, they trust their population way more. That was smarter approach, and it sure as hell looked as that even during those times. In my crappy eastern europe home country, there was curfew after 8pm long after most of western europe abandoned any restrictions. I like to clear my head by long evening walks. I simply couldn't when being home, it felt I came to North Korea since cops back there are overzealous and often enjoy flexing their powers on common folks. Many policies were good and at least somewhat effective, some were outright restrictive or punitive bullshit with 0 positive effect, just fucking up people mentally more than they already were. That I think was the main point of critique - policy makers looked hard on numbers alone, not on psychological impacts of pushing too far. Its like chasing everything that kills people, you soon end up banning all cars since numbers alone are pretty horrible. We have generation of kids who are subtly (or not) fucked up, more than they should have been. Maybe 50 million affected? Many grandmas would gladly increase their risks a bit if they could see more freedom to their grandchildren, you have different (often better) priorities when older.