> virtually never take group outcomes into consideration when making choices unless forced to under the threat of violence.
Group outcomes are effectively a moot point. That presumes that the group, as a whole, has an agreed upon preferential outcome, and an agreed upon means of getting there. We do not (and basically never do, when it comes to the group). Some people want more stringent lockdowns, some people just want the lockdowns to be lifted. People who want more stringent lockdowns are averse to the risk of COVID, and are willing to sacrifice some of the joy of life to avoid it. People who want to lift the lockdowns are unperturbed by the risk, or are okay with allowing people to assume that risk to be able to go on with their lives. I don't see a clear winner from a utilitarian perspective; either really bad things happen to a small ratio of people, or mildly bad things happen to everyone. I certainly don't think the gap in net happiness is wide enough to warrant condescension about people ignoring group outcomes.
Melbourne AU — which is comparable to many European and American cities — eradicated Covid after 4 months of hard lockdown [1] combined with federal financial support.
Covid is the "endemic malaria problem" of 2020: just like malaria can be eradicated through water management, Covid can be eradicated through Australian-style government intervention. Today, both diseases are problems with clear and proven solutions.
