The problem is that when people refuse to wear masks, it's often other people who end up dying because of it, even when the other people took more care.

The reason, of course, is that masks are only partial protection for the people wearing them.

> The problem is that when people refuse to wear masks, it's often other people who end up dying because of it, even when the other people took more care.

Yep, just like lots of other things. 41,000 people die of second hand smoke per year because of the actions of others around them. Yet we do not take drastic measures to prevent these deaths. Having freedom means the people might abuse it to harm others, even by inaction. Novel viruses like covid come once every century. A century of second hand smoke deaths is well over 4 million deaths for the US alone, even higher in Europe.

> Yet we do not take drastic measures to prevent these deaths.

We do, actually. A virus like COVID-19 and second-hand smoke are only comparable to a certain degree, though. For example, smoking in public indoor spaces is banned in many, many countries in the world. I'm sure the measures would be even more drastic if inhaling second-hand smoke once could a) kill you within ~2 weeks if your health was already compromised b) cause brain damage within ~2 weeks if you were an otherwise healthy individual.

Why stop at ICU capacity?

What's been mystifying me is all the R0 graphs. They go up above 1, regions get more strict, they flatten, then slope down to around R0=1....

and then they flatten out again. Right at around R0=1.

It's maddening. We should keep it sloping down beyond that point.

In most countries, maintaining the minimum restrictions needed to get R~=1 is a deliberate policy choice, not something that's happening by accident.

Are they all daft? How does that make sense? R~=1 can have a low amplitude or a high amplitude. The goal should be to make the slope go down at least until contact tracing can be achieved. We have states in the US where R~=1 still means test shortages.

Most countries' health authorities don't believe that any achievable level of infection can be controlled through contact tracing alone, so they're aiming to find an acceptable equilibrium for the next year or two until a vaccine can be widely deployed.

If 1 person decides to "kill" all the others living around by not respecting any rules, would you accept that as his/her freedom?

By the way, social distancing could be enough if correctly applied; which is definitely not the case currently anywhere. People meet many others, go into bars and parties, ... It is only correctly applied when enforced strictly (ie. lockdown, sadly).

> In places where people refuse to wear masks and social distance... Let them die at slightly elevated rates

It's not necessarily them who die, though. A COVID-19 carrier who refuses to wear a mask and comply with social distancing might just infect you regardless of you wearing your mask. If you encounter such an individual, the risk of your infection is about 35%: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6....

> I'm tired of the government trying to save lives at any cost against people's will.

We have to protect society's most vulnerable members. We also currently don't know the extent of brain damage it can cause in otherwise healthy individuals: https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-brain-damage/a-54111054.