[logicchains]

If other people aren't afraid of the virus, you have no right to stop them; it's their choice. Now maybe you could argue you have a right to keep them out of your house, or your personal space, if you don't want to be infected, but you have absolutely no right to stop them meeting on the street far from you.

[SturgeonsLaw]

"If other people aren't afraid of drink driving, you have no right to stop them; it's their choice"

An appropriate time to look at where we draw the line is when their choices put others in harm's way

[worik]

You do so have a right to take measures for public health, which may well involve arresting people who ignore the necessary measures.

In a pandemic there is no "street far from you". We are in thios together

[logicchains]

> You do so have a right to take measures for public health, which may well involve arresting people who ignore the necessary measures.

Do you even understand what a right means? Rights, be it as defined by the US constitution or the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are inherent moral rights, it's not something the government can freely suspend based on some arbitrary utilitarian justification like case numbers. The whole point of those declarations of rights is protecting people from authoritarian governments; if the government has the power to suspend those rights, you have no rights!

Tell me in which declaration of rights is there a right to have armed police attack and lock up people peacefully assembling on the street?

And if you don't believe in rights, believe anything is moral as long as an elected government makes it law, then consider this. Would you still feel that way if the democratically elected government decided it was okay to rape worik's wife/daughter/mother? Would you still feel that way if the democratically elected government decided worik's ethnic group should be sent to gas chambers for cleansing? If not, then clearly you do believe in absolute rights.