Unfortunately most people have a simplistic understanding of what constitutes a 'good weapon'.  If weapon A kills on contact and weapon B does not, A is 'better'.  This is simply not true in the modern world.  A 'good' weapon is one which achieves a desired effect most efficiently, and killing a whole city in one fell swoop is not the only 'desired effect'.  In fact it is usually counterproductive insofar as the blowback will be a problem.

Thermo-nuclear weapons made it clear to TPTB that the problem with a really 'good' weapon in the classic sense is that it is really difficult to actually use.  Plenty of money can be made with these weapons by maintaining them, but if they were also usable it would be 'nice.'

Even if/when the cat is out of the bag on the precise nature of these 'strains' of 'coronavirus' as lab-made things, it will be the path of least resistance for  most of the peeps to just suck it up and tolerate them, and even justify them for people on the 'winning' side.  This is precisely because at the end of the day they are simply not a big enough threat to a large enough segment of society to do anything about.  There is simply no practical way at this stage of our technocratic development to do much about them from the ground level.  'Voting harder' is clearly not working.