Have you read what you you've just wrote?
You are happy to have everything stopped at the drop of a hat because of ONE case? Do you not see how that can be taken advantage of?
What's the point of ANY business that is currently forced to close, reopening again when allowed if just ONE case that could come from anywhere at anytime shuts them down again?
Do you not see how insane that idea of 'life' is?
@Randy, it's you that doesn't seem to get it., what
@JM14 has wrote makes perfect sense.
The idea is if you go extreme on one case for 5 days (similar level to what we're doing now, but not timed the same), it means you don't have to go half assed for 5 months. Eradication or prevention are far easier to manage (for the population) than working through it. It's called being proactive, and every nation that's been proactive has been better for it. You just think lockdowns are bad as you're living in a location where they're used in a reactive manor, which is nowhere near as effective.
Anyone would swap what we have had to be in the same situation as Australia or New Zealand, or they would/ should, if looking at the bigger picture.
A lock-down doesn't mean the world stops, it still functions for a large percentage and then when the lock downs are lifted, a lot of the "lockdown loss" gets recouped as a sort of bounce back. That doesn't happen in all industries, but it's what is there to protect the majority.
It's hard on some industries, but this has to be done, as the two alternatives are a messed up 5 months of lockdowns (which is $hit, for everyone) or years of overwhelming the NHS (which is completely unacceptable to anyone).
There is not "good" solution, just a case of picking what is "least bad".