Proper preventative measures are necessarily based on what is likely to work, not what we have data on. That's what makes them preventative. This implies that we must err on the side of caution, even if it turns out later that some measures were unnecessary.
Largely agreed but any measures should be proportionate to the risk those measures are designed to mitigate.
There's always a risk of any virus mutating
The risk of Covid...well, the overall CFR is around 1%, then there's "Long Covid" which I haven't seen much data around. It obviously causes pressure on health services which has knock on effects.
This isn't a "holy shit there are piles of bodies in the streets" level event. The trouble is some people think that because of that it's not a situation which requires any response at all. It clearly does.
Whether that response should have included lockdowns - I'm sceptical, particularly the way our idiots did it which was to implement lockdowns far too late and with so many caveats and exceptions so to render them ineffective.
I'm also sceptical that the risk posed by the unvaccinated is high enough that they should be prevented from attending certain events or holding certain jobs*.
I'm a bit unsettled at this creating a "two tier society", even if people are choosing which tier to be in.
(*That said - my wife used to work in a care home, they are getting rid of staff who won't be vaccinated - won't as opposed to can't. I do think there is a case to be made for that in jobs where you are dealing with vulnerable people all day...although I'd note that the NHS aren't making the same rule, because they'd be screwed if they did, where care workers are 10 a penny)