It's not simple. Even in your country, or any other country that has done this effectively, I promise you it is not simple. There are sacrifices being made, whether you can see them now or not. And just because it has been executed well in one country and economy does not mean it can just be universally applied without issue.
In any case, I'm absolutely all for such compensation, I'm just not under the delusion that it's easy to achieve.
> There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it.
You've apparently just conjured up your own notion of what authoritarian means to select cases. I'm not going to argue semantics. Suffice to say, this is more governmental control than many people are willing to relinquish.
> Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard.
Neither are anywhere remotely close to the diversity of the US. The major cities are to be sure cosmopolitan as they are around the world, the general populous is not.
> There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it.
You've conjured your own meaning of authoritarian here to apparently require specific political opposition oppression. This is not correct, but I'm also not interested in arguing semantics. Suffice to say many view lockdown as more interventionist than ideal in their government.
> First off, lockdowns are effective
I will refer you back to my original post and the very first sentence I responded to you with, as well as the parenthetical you replied to here. They are effective in reducing cases. This is not the only factor at play.
> And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%).
Indeed, when the world as a whole locked down together. Since that time is has become partisan as you said, and also highly questioned whether the costs were worth it.