Strawman. And there's a certain irony because your stance is all-or-nothing. If it helps at all, we do it, right? That's pretty inflexible.
In reality, how much does it help, and what is the required threshold for mandating something? What are the metrics for taking away individual decision making, and what are the metrics for returning it?
A lot of this is just ignorance. Most people are never involved in a process that determines the value of a life, or multiple lives. Funnily enough the military does it all the time with collateral damage. And insurance companies have life valued down to the dollar. But every time you get in a car you put other lives at risk. Is it the same risk level as COVID? No. But where's the line between driving and COVID? Isn't it strange that we don't know it, after two years? Who gets to decide? And if it's not up to the individual, does the individual at least have a right to view the process, the metrics, and the data?
Most also don't realize how many people die every day. So you get absurd metrics like "1% of everyone over 65 has died of COVID-19." Yup. But over 4% of everyone over 65 dies each year. So what's the point?
How many developmentally disabled kids who are *barely* able to comprehend human interactions will be irreparably stunted by the masking and isolation? 1? 100? 1000? How many old lives is that worth? How many fat lives? How many cancer survivors? If parents don't get to make that decision, what are the metrics being used by those who do? What are the government's estimates for childhood developmental damage, and what is their limit for saving the elderly?
In the next pandemic, when we have an actually-scary disease, was it worth creating the division and distrust in expertise that we've created with this pandemic?
How is it that two years in, the government is only now distinguishing between "died of COVID-19" and "died with COVID?" Do you really think they forgot? No one at the CDC thought that would be relevant until now?
There's so much more to this than just "masks do something."
You keep throwing the idea of tyranny back at conservatives as though they are making an argument for some sort of Machiavellian takeover of American society. Tyranny most often comes from the idiots and fools, so wildly underqualified for their positions, and deeply aware of it, that they will say or do anything to distract from their nearly-perfect track record of failure. Data and thresholds are the enemy, because they tie a politician to something that can be measured, scored, and held against them at the next election.
I'm not concerned about Barack Obama secretly running the Democratic Illuminati from his basement. I'm worried about well-meaning Americans taking the fear mongering and scare tactics of politicians at face value, and sacrificing their Liberty and free will for a threat that is being almost entirely exaggerated and fabricated by politicians. I think I'm wrong? How is it that some of the loudest politicians on the left have been caught violating every safety measure they espouse? Newsome at the French laundry, AOC in Miami. The mayor of Austin going to a wedding. Pelosi going to the hair salon. These are not the actions of people who believe what they are saying.
It would be one thing, and still bad, for us to give up our freedom based on the whims of politicians who do not have the data or the thresholds to present us with, but at least believe in their hysteria enough to submit to their own edicts.
But we don't. Who are you going to believe? Them, or your own two eyes?