[eggsbenedict]

No, I was specifically responding to the person who said that it was "cool" that governments used covid resstrictions as a pretext for running "social experiments." I am specifically quoting an individual, not creating a strawman. Read the comment thread I was taking part in carefully for evidence.

For what it's worth, I think many of the covid restrictions were at the time believed to be necessary measures, but that's actually not the debate that's taking place here.

[bruce511]

They were "experiments" in the sense that the actual outcomes were predicted (or not) but in normal times would be difficult to achieve at scale.

I'm not suggesting that they were unrelated to the issue at hand - and I'm not implying they were unethical.

I believe most govts acted in good faith, with limited information, and (quite literally) no experience to draw on. Even today we don't really know what the "best approach" was, what we can say though is that a future pandemic will have better data to work with.

Had all countries had the exact same response we would not really know if what we did was best or not. Lockdown, travel restrictions, alcohol bans, closure of businesses, closure of sport, limited social mobility, police enforcement, no enforcement - all these and more were tried in one place or another.

They were experiments with forseen, and unforseen consequences.

Sure there was over-reach here and there, but for the most part it was a best effort response from no known experience.

I don't believe it could be called tyrannical.