That sentiment fits individualist views and policies, where it behooves us to hear out individuals and consider them on their individual merits.
However the view and policy discussed (limitations on individuals for common good) is explicitly a collectivist view and policy. Applying a sweeping generalization to a collectivist view and policy is fit and proper by the very nature of collectivism.
Edit: corrected a typo from "individuals" to "individualist".
It is not possible because it is not possible to arrive at the stance via logic.
If not for the marketing campaign; certainly if not for the "original sin" of Italy's lockdown; we wouldn't even be speaking about this.
If coronavirus were highly transmissible ebola it would make sense. It's just not, most of us know tens or hundreds of people who've had it at this point (the UK has a _confirmed_ case rate of over 17%).
I was there, remember? The pubs were rammed, Boris started saying "don't do X", numbers decreased a lot, he said "we make this legal now", the world stopped.
I'm bored of debating this now so whatever, all I get online is a stream of trolls. Good luck.
(And because of travel bans. But the anti-lockdown people mostly support those because that’s the ironic position.)
In other places we weren’t nearly so concerned about shutting down pubs; actually the bad case that often happened in the US was leaving bars open (for tax revenue) but closing schools (because parents and teachers are more neurotic than bar goers).
Still I haven’t met a whole lot of people complaining they weren’t allowed to work. Our stimulus worked quite well there.
I don’t think lockdowns are necessary or reasonable in 2022 but at least, as someone temporarily in the UK, I’ll be able to get out of my local family trying to make me see some ridiculously quaint British thing called a “panto”.
Not everyone advocating lockdowns is necessarily so flippant about it. Some consider the costs carefully. Please keep in mind that hospitals were being overwhelmed long before vaccines were available.
(FWIW I'm not defending absolute lockdowns since going outside with moderate distancing appears to have been safe at every stage of this phenomenon.)
As such the stance is definitionally illogical which makes it flippant - it falls apart under even mild scrutiny.
I've seen about a billion variations on it now, it just gets boring to bat them off. e.g. "if the healthcare system is overwhelmed, you'll die in a minor car crash, so don't go outside, then you won't drive your car or stand near cars, then you can't die in a minor car crash anyway, err... but lockdown though!".
It's tautologically broken. The basic premise is of "not doing X, in order to not do X".
If we don't lock down and you break your leg, you may not get medical attention.
So let's lock down so that it's impossible to break your leg.
I'm totally happy to accept that contracting coronavirus could be triaged lower than acute chronic conditions, heart attacks, etc, that's an interesting debate to have because healthcare is scarce and therefore an ordering _must_ be chosen.
What makes no sense is just flinging our hands up and saying "well, stop the world for everyone instead".
Sweeping generalizations aren't really adding to the discussion here. Please assume the best of others. We're all trying to find the best way forward with incomplete information. And tying ideas too closely to ones identity, or that of others, won't help us adapt as more evidence come to light.