Ah so people should have free will taken away.

I thought people were advocating for responsible behavior, not enforcement.

Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.

I think most frequently the society restricts the freewilled acts _upon_ another person. I'm not sure I agree that going out in public is an act upon another person. They are free to touch door knobs or not. They are free to associate or not in public places.

Obviously I shouldnt be allowed to sneeze on someone (how this is defined is unclear) or to enter their private space w/o permission...

This is a bit analogous to the right to photograph/film in public.

I can choose to drive at 100mph in the wrong lane of traffic. This is not impinging on anyone else's free will. They are free to not use that lane, to drive around me, or to join me in going 100mph.

Photography in public is not a public health or safety issue and does not overwhelm hospitals with its effects.

The libertarian view point is that personal freedoms should not be limited, except in narrowest of scopes.

Examples of US policies that limit personal freedoms for the good of society without a direct infraction on someone else include: export controls, gun laws, mandatory auto insurance, income tax, state laws on vaccinations.

Doesn’t seem logical. Why protect someone with such a weak immune system so they can pass it on to the next generation? That makes society weaker.

Because some of us see our friends, family, and neighbors as more than a set of genes to pass on to the next generation.

And if those friends, family, and neighbors are clogging up a strained medical system that could even cause harm to us when we require such services for our own well being.

Because humans are more than their immune systems - I'd argue the Salk made society far stronger than a society requiring polio immunity as a precondition to live

Unfortunately all humans are born with weak immune systems, and sadly babies aren't fully vaccinated until they are ~2 years old. We protect them, because they eventually become our society. That pesky "future generations" concept.

You see, our immune system is built up over time with exposure to viruses, and inoculations. Then as we age, as our health decreases, our immune system gets worse again.

Personally, as I make my way through middle age, I hope that when I do reach my golden years I'm met with a little bit more compassion than "who cares about you, you're old and useless."

Funny enough, I know someone who has an auto immune system disorder, and recently found out this person is a lead figure in setting up Covid-19 response systems for major healthcare systems in the US.

How would you feel if I identified some quality that you have and decided you were not worth protecting because of the result it has on society?

This attitude is one step away from eugenics. You know who was a big proponent? I'll let you look it up.

Also large swaths of the elderly dying is unlikely to have much of an effect on strengthening our gene pool, no?

We also have our freedoms limited by:

- road rules - murder being a criminal offence - the concept of private property

We give up some personal liberties so that everyone has equal liberties including the liberty to enjoy their lives to the extent allowed for everyone.