[HoveringOrb]

>There are different viewpoints and pilosophies on what would work out best.

In this case, it mostly seems to be a difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say. One of these is decidedly more valid than the other. I'm sure the experts disagree on some points, but these are details compared to the difference between the overall message they offer and what some self-centered goob or conspiracy theorist wants.

[brobdingnagians]

Even experts disagree. Countries have taken different actions precisely because of that. And even then, it can quickly devolve to "rule by experts" in every area of our life. I can listen to experts, I can learn from them, and I can make my own judgement call.

> difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say

That's my point. It is a radical step to let Joe Blow, however silly or stupid I may think he is, to decide his own way of living. Maybe Joe Blow thinks I'm an idiot too for living the way I choose to do it.

[oblio]

The thing is, the countries which have chosen an unorthodox approach to handling this epidemic have by all indicators we can find, failed.

Just because there are alternative approaches, does not mean they have equal merit.

[DeusExMachina]

> I'm sure the experts disagree on some points

That is quite an understatement, given that many experts made complete 180 turns contradicting what they said earlier.

But let's assume that they all agree on some point. Epidemiologists are still epidemiologists, i.e., people that know about diseases. They can inform you about how viruses spread, or what measures work best.

But they don't decide policy. Society needs to balance much more than just this epidemic. No intervention has zero unintended consequences.

Something that is getting clearer as numbers show more and more that the lockdowns so loved by the experts cause far more damage in other aspects of life, like premature death of untreated cancer patients, suicides, starvation, and so on.