>>12163477>The government has an obligation and a strong incentive to do no more than it needs to and to restore things to the way they were. You can say that they are making a mistake in their approach to the problem, but for them it is still better than the inaction you propose.I think that government is filled with people way more clever and way more powerful than me. They are also politicians, so people of very dubious moral standards. That means that explaining something by their stupidity is far less sound than explaining it by the calculated malice.
>Tell me how specifically a first world government benefits from doing that.1)Introducing Chinese style social rating system. If China can do it, why can't others?
2)Introducing total automatic surveillance. You know, to prevent corona and crimes and such.
3)Giving profits to the certain medical industries.
4)Checking if you can force most people to stop working, either as a drill or as a way to move them to ubi state (which isn't as good as it sounds) or, if you want to go completely dark, eliminate
5)Making small businesses go broke and then concentrating everything in larger monopolies.
6)Banning travel. There was such a movement, it was promoted due to the supposed climate reasons
7)Reducing consumption (otherwise known as making people way poorer).
8)If you want a bit more conspiracy: China decided that West is more fragile, so by tricking them into lockdowns it hurt the competitor. Or Europe decided that America is now very fragile, so introducing lockdowns by yourself will give them a bad example and will help to eliminate the competitor again.
9)Checking how many states will obey the directives coming from the central authority.
By the way, every point above is actually happening. So you can only claim that it is happening due to politician stupidity, but that is discussed further above.
