Without that it is just "something bad happened to me someone should pay".
Do we ignore that the pandemic itself seems to call for the government to do a thing? The pandemic sure isn't government action.
it's a bit more specific than "something bad happened to me someone should pay". restaurants are going under as a direct result of government action. if they failed because people were too scared to go out to dinner, that would be a different story. can you not accept that it's possible for the government to do a good thing, but also owe compensation to people who are disproportionately harmed by that thing?
Just the basics of liability would seem to have to include being "liable". Hard to be liable for a pandemic.
I don't know what the right answer is here but it's an interesting discussion.
We don't want people who make good faith efforts to protect / help people sued... because the end result was not entirely positive.
Dude is in a car accident and his car is on fire. I pull him out but his arm breaks?
I didn't cause the accident, neither did he, I didn't have to pull him out of that burning car.... but it probabbly makes sense that I'm not legally liable because we want people to help.
Same goes for this sort of ultra expanded view of government liability.
If they're not protected, the result is without question inaction. Voters don't want that, nobody really does.
The concept is just general fairness / incentivizing good acts and isn't hard to understand within the concept of anyone acting, not just individuals.
The idea that someone / anyone must pay regardless is just ignoring the actual circumstances. That makes no sense.