(excuse the typos, errors, and jumping from one thing to the next as this was more about just exposing people to broader viewpoints)
China has descended into a veritably Orwellian state of existence. The every move of their citizens is tracked and with the coronavirus more freedoms have been eviscerated. Indeed, one is not permitted to leave their residence if the mandatory tracking detects that you have been in close proximity to anyone infected. Even if one is not infected. This is a remarkably effective strategy at quashing the spread of a virus. And for many the equation ends there. The solution is found. Of course the situation is a bit more complicated than that.
The primary fallacy is that the equation has only one variable. That is which variable is the most effective at reducing deaths at the quickest rate. This is intuitive as humans fear one thing more than any other. They fear death. Thus, for most people the only moral imperative is to reduce deaths at any cost. Never-mind that history has taught us that this strategy tills the soils for a fecund vengeance of tyranny. Benjamin Franklin said that he who sacrifices ESSENTIAL liberty for TEMPORARY safety deserves neither. This has never been more true than it is today. Because while no one can contest the empirical fact that fascist measures of containment are eminently effective the question has never been about which variable can reduce the most amount of deaths in the shortest amount of time. That is because the premise that there is only one variable, death, is false. One cannot deduce from the fact that there are many deaths that it is then a logical conclusion to restrict peoples actions.
I do not wish to purvey a history lesson spanning the ages but let me cite an example of how much more life is than whether one dies or not. "Give me Liberty or give me Death". Would it surprise you that one of the main causes of the utterance of these words was not the specter of death but of taxation without representation? In other words it was an issue of being told what to do and having ones money taken without having any say. People were and are willing to die for that. For less. The complete restriction of movement for an undetermined amount of time is scandalous to say the least. The declaration of independence talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but it does not place one above the other. All are worth fighting for. All are worth keeping and we should never sacrifice one for the other.
A government will sacrifice your liberty for it's stability any day of the week.
But of course one could also make the argument that it is morally egregious to restrict people's movements and actions when for tens of thousands of people tomorrow is their last. To deprive people of any joyful experience as they near their last day because of your fear is disgusting. Let them take the risk. If they want to go out and about and there are patrons willing to serve then that should be their choice. No government should impede that freedom. The government can nudge and educate through policies and campaigns but to criminalize and to obstruct people from enjoying their lives is unacceptable. Furthermore there is also a strong case to be made that slowing research on aging is costing many hundreds of thousands of lives daily. Far higher than the coronavirus death toll will ever be. Such things cannot be summarily dismissed when the progress that we have seen is real. If people are willing to work on this essential work then they should be permitted to do so.
The government is not all knowing. They dismiss any such arguments as less than serious. Because to them stability and control is everything. To those who care about the human toll not just from a life and death perspective but from a quality of life perspective liberty is more than essential.
Liberty is essential. Freedom of movement and freedom to enjoy life when for hundreds of thousands of people it is their last few days is essential. To sacrifice the ability to work and make progress prolongs the suffering of hundreds of millions of people by extending their poverty where there is no economic growth. Starvation, disease, and squalid living conditions are the result of total lock downs. Millions are dying because we are delaying the end of aging. The decision you take for granted as the correct one cause more destruction and suffering than you even care to imagine.
All for what? So that those of you under 50 can feel a little safer than you won't die from a less than 1% chance from the coronavirus? Of course the actions of other people never endangered you either way. The actions that one can take to protect oneself is not contingent upon the actions of others. PPE, isolation, and hygiene are dependent upon oneself. They are not killing you by doing what they want. You are killing yourself.
The story is much more complicated than many would have us think.