The flu can be a very serious disease as well for those that are susceptible and in the past I have heard many of the same arguments about it. I just think many states are taking the lock downs too far. We are supposed to be a free country. That should mean that we have a choice about what risks we take.
I hear that a lot, and I don't actually disagree with it. That said, it's not how the US has worked for at least a century. We have a ton of laws and codes preventing us from choosing to accept risks we might want to. Health codes in restaurants, building and fire codes, pretty much every regulation on the medical industry, the entire FDA, OSHA. I'm sure there's more. All of these are predicated on the idea that we need to restrict the behavior of individuals sometimes to protect the health and well being of others.
You will get no argument from me that our current tapestry of "for the greater good" rules is an over-reaching smothering tide. I even agree that some of the things we've done for COVID were an over reaction, extra legal, or both. (some things were an under reaction, and some were just retarded, but that's a different discussion). For the sake of the discussion though, lets redact to the absurd for a second. I think we can all agree that locking everyone in their home and requiring daily COVID tests to leave for anything would be an overreaction. Similarly, I suspect most people would be OK with a village rule that doesn't allow people to defecate in the villages only water source. (SanFran notwithstanding) The population is going to fall on a spectrum between those points for risk acceptance vs. loss of freedom. For almost any spot you place on that spectrum someone would be willing to give up more freedoms for safety, and someone will feel that the tyranny has gone too far. So where does society draw the line? Why should your (or mine, or Gov Newsom's) personal limit of risk acceptance vs. freedom be forced on everyone else in the society? And how do you factor in the very real fact that in some cases peoples actions are increasing risk for others that may not have chosen to accept that particular risk/reward paradigm?
FWIW that's not just a COVID-19 question, although the pandemic does throw it in rather stark contrast. I also don't have a good answer to the question I just posed. Should Mary Mallon have been allowed to continue working in NYC households? Should we have posted the National Guard at city and state borders and flat shut down travel (ala the movie Contagion)?
