You replied to the wrong comment. You're also going to need to provide a citation that demonstrates that any harms from quarantines and lockdowns exceed the millions of additional deaths that they've likely prevented.

Most reasonable people understand the difference between "sustainability" as a systemic goal (e.g., ensuring that a pension plan is self-supporting and disbursible in perpetuity) and reactive policymaking (e.g., asking people to self-isolate and wear masks until our best science and net outcomes support a change). The latter doesn't need to be "sustainable," because it isn't supposed to be a permanent fixture. It's something we do to "stop the bleeding."

> You're also going to need to provide a citation that demonstrates that any harms from quarantines and lockdowns exceed the millions of additional deaths that they've likely prevented.

The harm of locking people down and preventing people from working is self-evident. Even if it was effective in dealing with COVID, clearly it isn’t as it is still here, it still violates individual sovereignty and the principle of consent of the governed.

Also 2 years on, these policies are no longer a reaction or short-term action. So the issue of sustainability is relevant. We’re in a situation where we either accept cyclical oppressive lockdowns, or just learn to live with it. Vaccination doesn’t really come into it as we don’t have a vaccine, just temporary protections which aren’t even fully effective.