It doesn't seem right that one should be forced to go before it's "their" time as a result of the masses' inability to care about the collective health of their neighbors.

No one would force someone to expose themselves to that risk should they choose not to participate in the wider society. Your point would make sense if people were intentionally spreading the disease. (ftr i am against covid parties). But in this case for someone to get the disease they must choose to expose themselves to it (by going to a restaurant, by not sanitizing their hands before touching their eyes et al)

The point is that the freedoms/rights of the masses are being restricted for the benefit of few.

And to be clear I'm not saying that people should not be prudent whilst retaining their freedoms. It's prudent to wear a seat belt in a car, or a helmet on a motorcycle. Similarly it's prudent to wear a mask and sanitize hands and objects.

But to tell everyone they cannot drive because someone (not the driver) might die, or you cannot drive a motorcycle because it increases your chance of death over alternative means of transport has never been a rational argument. Yet we take similar arguments about covid19 as sufficient?

I see your points, but I admittedly have a different perspective.

Sure, no one would force a person to expose themselves to that risk. However, for much of the population, there comes a point where they have to participate in the wider society for necessities, e.g. groceries; obviously, there are a few exceptions to that statement. Sure, they could get their groceries delivered, if they can afford it. But if they can't afford it, then they must participate in order to continue to live. All of this doesn't even begin to touch on essential workers, who are forced to work and may not have an easy time attaining another job.

The freedoms and rights aren't being restricted for the benefit of few; it's for the _safety_ of many.

The example for driving doesn't match here, I feel. One can observe cars driving erratically and do their best to avoid them or one choose to take an alternative mode of transport in order to avoid getting into a car accident. But viral transmission doesn't have any realistic similarity to traffic deaths. One cannot see viral particles in the air as they get transmitted from one person to another. And anyone who comes into contact with that person is at risk from the moment the transmitter contracts the virus until they become immune. Traffic deaths don't work like that.

One cannot choose to not to be a part of society when they are required to participate to be able to live. That ability to live is a right afforded to everyone. Why is someone's right to life worth less than someone's temporarily restricted freedom to do what they want?

Are you comfortable dying for my right to see an improv show? Because I'll tell you right now, I'm sure as hell not comfortable dying for yours.

Is smashing the already transient lives of real people worth the bottom lines of a few restaurants?

> In california reopening moved our daily death rate from ~60ppl per day to ~90

~90 if you're using something like a seven day average.

Today and yesterday have both been >150.

There's a lot of latency separating actions like reopening and the consequences of that in terms of covid-19 deaths.

It could be weeks-months before large numbers of people even start taking advantage of the reopening let alone getting infected as a consequence, then more weeks to die.

As a followup it looks like the 7 day moving average is going up its ~110 now. I'm adjusting my perspective based on this new data.