[matt_o]

You picked a small fragment of the OP's argument and turned it into a strawman. For example, you dropped the whole "making an informed assessment of the risks" part, which is pretty important to the whole message.

You bring up "your freedom to swing your fist, etc." - how does this apply to lockdown measures that were proven to be ineffective, such as cleaning surfaces[0]? We've poured a lot of money and people's time into cleaning surfaces even while knowing early on that this is a very minor source of transmission. These resources could have been invested in proven measures, such as getting more people more N95 masks.

The way I understand OP's argument is that it's against how heavy-handed and inflexible these lockdown measures have been, limiting individuals effectiveness in dealing with the pandemic. Turning surface cleaning into security theater is one example. Another is the initial official messaging that people should not wear masks because they are not proven to be effective against COVID[1].

These restrictions made it harder to respond to the pandemic in an effective way. People wearing masks early in the pandemic or those choosing not to drown themselves in disinfectant did not, in fact, "pollute the air you breathe."

If we are to face similar disasters in the future, we have to be honest about these things so we can act better next time.

[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4 [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...