In the context of how to respond and if possible disabled a weaponized remote controlled aircraft, I think being dead or seriously wounded also interferes with human activity. These proposals aren't-I didn't get the impression at least-meant to be implemented and operated persistently, but applied into purpose-built apparatuses to disrupt a hostile remote controlled aircraft.
That's a context I'm willing to trade having my phone work for a moment if there's a DJI Phantom dropping bombs over Boston (I beg humor for the hip-hop hyperbole) being taken out of commission before someone gets hurt.
But jamming 1km around every possible target, every day as a precaution is going to be too disruptive. It may actually increase risk to life - by jamming 911 calls for any ordinary accident.
For a spurious one time threat from an unknown actor, then most of these are overkill.
However against a known adversary with an MO for doing drone attacks, these might be legitimate.
An example, a sports event: stringing a fine net from the building/all weather lights, directional GPS blocking (its RF so can trivially be localised.) is cheap and proportional. "RF snipers" with 900 watt converted microwave "guns" (or more likely a beam forming radar type affair)
GPS is used for all sorts of legitimate human activity, so blocking it would cause problems.
Electronic noise could interfere with not just drones, but all sorts of electronic devices that humans use and need.
Nets, flack, and shotguns could certainly interfere with or harm humans, depending on where they are, and if there's some place they're not to let humans pass, then drones might be able to go through the same route.
Rain is annoying to humans and so plenty of places where humans are are protected against rain, so in those places this is an inadequate defense against drones -- though maybe sprinklers would work (but they can cause their own problems to useful electronics and might even cause an electrocution hazard to humans, depending on where they're used).