Yes, but look at the data. There are industrialized countries with less than 1/3 the per capita death rate of the US. Maybe you can’t ‘win’ but clearly you can do a better job than others. It’s a stretch and arguably fear-mongering to equate sensible policy to reduce death with authoritarianism.

> There are industrialized countries with less than 1/3 the per capita death rate of the US.

Are we reducing a multivariate phenomenon to public policy?

Clearly the US is horrifically unhealthy, could have different age demographics, etc.

At the end of the day, no I don't think I have the right to tell someone who's possibly struggling already they cannot work.

This is all a massive bet ignoring the massive costs that everyone else in society have to bear.

And sadly none of the supposed smart people making these decisions will bear the cost (and we know they never make bad decisions /s).

Luckily you are not in a position to decide public health policy, and a majority of voters seem to disagree with you.

Poor people around the world have been devastated by the majority position in public health policy.

A majority of people and the health establishment thought ventilators were a good idea; it turns out mortality dropped 30% during the time period that their use was stopped.

The people deciding things have very little gauge of the disastrous costs that they themselves do not have to suffer. Their social class precludes it by nature!

Are you an essential worker? Is that below you? The least advantaged are forced to risk their lives and are bearing the brunt of all these decisions.

The Pajama Class is waging class war, convinced they're right - when in fact they've blundered their way through this - shaming everyone who disagrees with them.

Make no mistake - the public policy decisions you're advocating favor the well-off.

Clearly it's a spectrum, not a binary. I doubt you'd say we shouldn't impose more precautions during an Ebola outbreak than we would during a normal winter cold & flu season.

Precautions are generally proportional to the risks involved. Personal responsibility ceases to be the only determining factor in what precautions to take when an irresponsible person imposes the consequences of their poorly judged actions on other people. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Punching me in the nose isn't justifiable simply because I will, at some point, die regardless of your actions.

That said, it is a spectrum. Which means, if you want to avoid absurd extremes then you must draw a line somewhere on that spectrum. Assuming you don't espouse political anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, approaching me & swinging your fist at my nose while we're both walking down the street is would be on the wrong side of the line for pretty much everyone. If I approach you and tell you I'll stab you if you don't hand over your wallet then swinging your fist at my nose is on the other side of that line.

COVID is clearly more complicated because in addition to the above spectrum, there is the spectrum of a probability distribution that dictates the likelihood of spreading the virus if infected, and the likelihood of serious illness or death if infected by someone spreading the virus. Drawing the line between acceptable imposition of precautions is therefore much more complicated, and absent absurd extremes is necessarily going to be drawn somewhere that some subset believes is authoritarian, and others believe is too permissive & intrudes on their own freedom from the negative consequences of other people's choices.

In all cases though, if your concept of "No one “wins” against things like death, disease, etc." were to be the guiding force behind societal decisions, then literally any action is permissible.

> then literally any action is permissible

What's permissible now is whatever doesn't harm or constrain upper classes.

We've decided that essential workers should work and the higher classes should be sheltered and they can dispatch the expendables to sustain themselves.

Your moral analysis is pretty much in support of whatever the Pajama Class decides is right.

Then you are reading too much into my analysis.

My post was simply a discussion on the process of determining precautions, absent going to an extreme. It was not advocacy for the specific place on the spectrum where the line should be drawn. It was, in response to your comment, an observation that no matter where the line is drawn, there will be some who view it violates their freedom as too authoritarian, and others who believe it violates their freedom by allowing irresponsible decisions by others to impact them.

I won't go into the particulars of my own opinion on where the lines should be drawn except to say that I think some decisions have been bad, some have been okay, but that in general this is not a situation that lends itself to easy answers.