In this case, it mostly seems to be a difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say. One of these is decidedly more valid than the other. I'm sure the experts disagree on some points, but these are details compared to the difference between the overall message they offer and what some self-centered goob or conspiracy theorist wants.
> difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say
That's my point. It is a radical step to let Joe Blow, however silly or stupid I may think he is, to decide his own way of living. Maybe Joe Blow thinks I'm an idiot too for living the way I choose to do it.
Just because there are alternative approaches, does not mean they have equal merit.
That is quite an understatement, given that many experts made complete 180 turns contradicting what they said earlier.
But let's assume that they all agree on some point. Epidemiologists are still epidemiologists, i.e., people that know about diseases. They can inform you about how viruses spread, or what measures work best.
But they don't decide policy. Society needs to balance much more than just this epidemic. No intervention has zero unintended consequences.
Something that is getting clearer as numbers show more and more that the lockdowns so loved by the experts cause far more damage in other aspects of life, like premature death of untreated cancer patients, suicides, starvation, and so on.
That's not a compromise. That's like saying "Some people like blindly shooting into crowds. Some do it to gain an advantage, some do it because they don't fear death, some do it for fun. Most gun wounds aren't even lethal. Sure, some people are opposed and think nobody should blindly shoot into crowds. So let's just compromise and say that everyone does what they want".
But you are saying this because you _agree_ with the politicians. You believe your preferred course of action is better than most peoples'. There are different viewpoints and pilosophies on what would work out best. There is disagreement on what course of action will get society through it and optimize future outcomes. It is egotistical, and poisoning the well, to call everyone else egotistical and selfish because they disagree with you and the politicians you support.
I think that people left to themselves _will_ disagree with one another, but will make decisions based on personal reasons, such as trying to get their business to survive, or to gain an advantage, or just because they don't particularly fear death, or any of thousands of other reasons. I may disagree with their decisions, but I'm careful about my own judgement of "what is rational" in someone else's circumstances, or even about my own knowledge of how they should optimally behave. There are too many politicians who believe they know how everyone else should do things. Certainty in knowledge is rarely real. The compromise is to let people decide for themselves.