I believe it's important to keep in mind that the CAP theorem proves the limits of a system. E.g. in the usual case where you may get network partitions (P), you can't have a fully available (A) and at the same time fully consistent (C) system.
In practice though, different systems make different tradeoffs between availability A and consistency C, so it's more like a spectrum than a binary choice.
According to its homepage, etcd is strongly-consistent, meaning it tries to ensure consistency even at the expense of availability (and therefore leans towards C on the C-A spectrum).
That doesn't mean etcd can't be "highly-available" in the traditional IT sense but there's certainly other databases that are much more available in the CAP theorem sense (usually called eventually consistent databases). What do I mean by that?
Let's say you have a 3-node etcd cluster and 1 node gets partitioned from the other two. If you try to use this separate node to make some changes, it won't let you because it doesn't have (Raft) quorum - this means it's not available in the CAP sense. But it doesn't mean that you can't use the rest of the cluster as you would normally (so you get "high availability" in the traditional sense).
Of course, if you lose the two nodes in a fire or some such accident, then you can't use this cluster any longer, even though you still have 1 node (again, the system is not available in the CAP sense).
So, in etcd case, what people usually mean with "high-availability", is that it can keep working as long as you (e.g. k8s control node) are in the network partition with at least half the etcd nodes. In the most simplistic sense it means "you can lose up to X nodes and the cluster will survive".