no, this is not about empathy but personal autonomy and sovereignity and autocracy. Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals?

If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store ... case closed. On what basis is the state "protecting" someone that does not want to be protected? On what basis is someone considered a criminal when a crime could only potentially be committed?

what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?

> Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals?

Because we live in a society and our actions affect others. When you take this argument to an extreme it becomes pretty obvious that it is fallacious. For example, do you think it is okay for someone to actively burn their garbage, venting toxic smoke into their neighborhood because they are “willing to take the risk” of developing health complications?

> If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store

It would really nice if this worked but it strikes me as a grand oversimplification of how society operates and diseases spread.

> what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?

These people still risk infecting others and perpetuating the pandemic, which is why you shouldn’t do it, even if you aren’t afraid for yourself.

Presumably said people would be willing to forfeit medical treatment and quietly die at home if they did catch it?

I've been considering this line of reasoning for a while: if opening your business disqualifies you from medical treatment, what else does?

Being obese? Smoking? After all, both of those are the direct result of your choices and less dependent on other people than getting a virus.

Most people say "Oh, that would never happen!" but if we have a time where rationing healthcare becomes the norm or even just vital, it will just as it did in Italy a few months back.

Much of that purported "willing" is driven by an involuntary need to service debt. Without acknowledging this, it's disingenuous to talk about the shutdowns in terms of autonomy. I'd wager that the shutdowns actually allowed more people to act with their desires than they prevented. For example had the shutdowns not occurred, how many companies that are pure WFH right now would have just continued telling everyone to come into the office?

you could make the same case for the current wave of protests

'you should support blm and adjacent causes from home through donating without putting more people and lives at risk'