What’s Left after a Virus Variable?

What seems to be the result so far for society and politics after 2 years of controversial policy regarding the new variable that was introduced to the world?

For the last 2 years there has been policy implemented which has seemed to test political ideology. With a new variable spreading across the world in the form of a virus, the question and practice was pushed to make policies regarding safety of this new variable. This seemed to test liberal ideology of at least civil liberties and free enterprise. With a new variable including unknown effects of potential harm, it likely seemed reasonable to restrict some civil liberties in order to reduce a potentially significant risk of harm (short and long -term). But as time went on, it quickly seemed evident that restricting liberties was not effective. So why did restricting liberties and free-market continue? 

Perhaps the reason has to do with the more-so “Left” idealism. Regarding Left-wing as; concern for disadvantaged groups of people, it seems logical that throughout society learning more about the effects of the virus proving to be more risky towards certain demographics, this likely became the focused concern. As may often happen with other occurrences of excessive focus on 1 aspect of compassion for a group of people, all other short and long -term negative effects involved, tend to be unconsidered. In this case, perhaps all focus was narrowed down to “protecting” those who are vulnerable to the virus. This is understandable as the most direct and attention-grabbing negative effects of the new virus were deaths of the vulnerable. 

The problem comes from the lack of consideration for negative effects caused by policies put into place with the intention of protection, even as more data and evidence became available. The generalized negative effect by the policies could be regarded as reduction of civil liberties. A common argument for people with left-wing ideology, might be that it's worth the restrictions, in order to protect the vulnerable. But it seems likely that the over-focusing causes disregarding of relevant contradicting details. Beyond the generalized concept of individual liberties being restricted (including short and long -term), details that seem to be ignored or immediately dismissed actually contradict the intention of protection. Contradicting concepts that are disregarded, could be; 

1) Alternative methods of protection for individuals

2) Negative effects of mainstream protection methods. 

1) More specific examples of alternative methods of protection against harm from the virus could include; immunity from previous infection, vitamin D, overall physical health (exercise and eating healthy), and medicine other than vaccines. By disregarding these alternative methods of protection, it contradicts the intention of protection, since many more people could be protected using these methods, and they could be incorporated even with the mainstream protection method to much better protect those who are vulnerable. 

2) Negative effects of mainstream protection methods could include; degradation of mental and physical health from forced isolation and market reduction, as well as negative side effects from mainstream medical procedures. By disregarding these effects, it quite obviously contradicts the intention of protection, since many are harmed from these effects, rather than protected. 

When alternative methods and negative effects of practiced methods are ignored because of over-focus on 1 aspect, the results are likely to be much less effective than they could be, or even counter-productive to the intention. Perhaps shallow idealism that has a narrow perspective of few factors and generalizes concepts, disregarding counter details, should be regarded with significant caution. After this new virus variable, perhaps what’s Left, is at least that 1 lesson to be learned.