Banning people from traveling, meeting each other, and working to earn a living and support themselves, are very much erosions of liberty, and people have been seriously impacted (particularly the poor). You are right, however, that they are not directly erosions of democracy.

However, there are plenty of direct erosions of democracy, even here in the United States. Our democracy in the US is applied through the rule of law, and many mandates have been issued in a manner inconsistent with the law: arbitrary, capricious use of power not authorized by the law. This is why, for instance, a court struck down Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer's extended use of emergency powers.

The court didn't find that Whitmer acted arbitrarily or capriciously, they simply ruled that she lacked the authority for the actions she took.

(for instance, the first finding speaks of the initial 28 day declaration being within the authority of the governor)

https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Cler...

I'm being pedantic, but you are implying a narrative that doesn't exist.

> The court didn't find that Whitmer acted arbitrarily or capriciously, they simply ruled that she lacked the authority for the actions she took.

Specifically, it found that that emergency powers act under which she acted was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority; the fundamental error the Court found was by the legislature, in not crafting an emergency powers law with sufficiently defined boundaries (or, alternatively, by not availing itself of the process to amend the Constitution to create broad emergency powers.)

There have been many suits about many measures in the US. My selection of Whitmer was meant as a single illustrative example, and not necessarily meant to embody all possible civic vices; if you simply wish to clarify that Whitmer was not ruled "arbitrary and capricious" then that clarification provides people with additional factual information which is well and good.

On the other hand, you can go next door to Ohio and find a ruling using that language in Rock House Fitness et al v. Amy Acton and Lake County General Health District. I decline to enumerate further suits at this time; I need to stop somewhere or I'll be here all day and it won't do anyone any good.

> Corrosion of democracy is when these rules are used selectively and for political reasons.

Interesting. You see, in the UK there is a large difference between the government guidance on mask wearing (taken to be rules by many), and what the law says. And yet, the police routinely arrest people not for breaking the law, but for ignoring what is in essence the preferences of a few ministers in government. This is the very definition of a police state: enforcing 'rules' without legal authority.

> Enforcing restrictions for closed spaces or making people wear a mask is not corrosion of democracy.

You’re really understating what has happened and what is going on.

> Corrosion of democracy is when these rules are used selectively and for political reasons.

When Mayor De Blasio and Governor Cuomo limit church gatherings, but not protests, what would you call that?

If you don’t think the rules are being unevenly enforced, and for political reasons, then you aren’t paying attention.

And if you don’t think it is the people who are calling for this uneven enforcement, you’re paying even less attention.

But it’s not the virus that caused the corrosion and the corrosion will not go away if you stop following the rules to help stop the spreading. That’s all I am saying.

As an outsider I do agree with you that democracy in US is going through a small crisis t he last few years, and in my opinion both parties are responsible for that by encouraging hate and trying to polarize people. And both parties are playing games with COVID rules which is a shame.

However by being a mask denier you don’t help fight the corrosion, you just become a pawn in their game.