[T-hawk]

People can't do these things even WITH everyone's consent.

What if I and 500 of my friends want to have a comics convention? With everyone fully aware and accepting of any risks?

Nope, absolutely not allowed anywhere in the entire damn world.

It's right there in the US Constitution. "No law abridging the freedom of the people to peaceably assemble." It does not say "except in case of arbitrarily-declared forever-lasting so-called emergency." If you want it to say that, amend it. If such an amendment wouldn't pass, that's because it damn well shouldn't.

This is freedom-destroying authoritarianism, and the frightened sheep like you eat it up. This is where democracy breaks, if 51% of people want to lock down the other 49% forever, the other 49% are fucked forever.

If you fear contagion and think you need to stay away from me, that is on YOU to restrict YOUR activities. You do not get to restrict mine.

[shytey]

Are you saying you would like the people in charge to remove all restrictions?

Do you agree that a higher number of people will die if they do this? Are you OK with that?

[umanwizard]

A higher number of people die of the flu and common cold every normal year because we don’t do lockdowns. Are you okay with that? Why or why not?

If not, then you must admit that, _of course_, increasing longevity to the absolute maximum possible extent should not be the only goal of public policy. And then it becomes clear that we’re talking about degrees. How many deaths are worth how much misery, suffering, and lost time among healthy people? Reasonable people can answer that question in different ways, but clearly the answer isn’t “zero”.

[T-hawk]

Yes, yes, and yes.

People should choose their own risk management decisions, not have a government forcibly do it for them. If you're concerned, you can choose to restrict yourself, but you have no business restricting me and any number of people that mutually wish to interact with me.