Dang, but this sounds distressing like the conspiracy theories my mom keeps telling me about -- the bug was manufactured, but not killing enough people, so expect variants to be introduced, with a goal of keeping people isolated and in fear and/or reducing the earth's population.

As horrific as it sounds, I'd at least consider asking, "what happens if we weight the trade-offs, and decide to mostly resume life as it was, knowing that our health care systems will be overwhelmed and a decent chunk of the population (10%?) would die." Aside from being scarred, would a place like that move on without endless restrictions, or, if a jurisdiction did that, they're still at risks from new variants around the world, aren't they?

On a different topic, I tend to be against forcing people to vaccinate. But I do wonder, how did things go down with seatbelt laws, in which people are forced to wear them? (Although I think there's only 90% compliance, even now). At what point should a state intervene to save lives? Conversely, at what point can a state decide to not intervene, even when it will cost lives?