By "stop", I guess I really mean slow/reduce/flatten-the-curve, etc. It's all a game of probabilities, and I guess I'm on team lets-work-together-as-a-society-to-reduce-the-chances-of-getting-and-spreading-sars-cov2. But that's slightly less catchy.

Are there any other considerents in life, or reduce-the-chances-of-getting-and-spreading-sars-cov2 is the only metric of relevance? Can you conceptualize any possible anti-covid measure that has too little of a benefit for too high of a cost, such that we should not deploy (or mandate!) it?

Perfect question, I was thinking of asking it here as well. I'll just expand it with a couple of points:

- What would the properties of vaccines need to be (efficacy, etc.), for experts to deem the vax mandates not reasonable?

- Same about face masks. How low the estimated efficiency must be for mandates to not be acceptable?

- Bonus point: how more soul-crushing the curfews and other movement limits need to be for them to remain in the realm of personal choice?

In other words, I would like to gauge how "falsifiable" is the "scientifically-informed" reasoning behind covid-enthusiasts' defense doctrine.