If this were about personal safety, it'd be an entirely different scenario. The problem is that people's actions here are significantly affecting the safety of other people.
A virtually identical argument could be made for the same thing with the sides swapped. Some people's actions (i.e., those imposing lockdowns and other restrictions) are significantly affecting the safety (i.e., mental health, solvency, etc) of other people. It's a balancing scale, not just an independent bar you're trying to drop to zero.
Sure. And that's why there is a complex list of things that are being banned or not, that varies by location, instead of simply telling everyone to go inside their house and not come out for three weeks. And significant legal changes, like unemployment eligibility, loan programs, etc. Exactly who are you thinking of, that is advocating to continue lockdowns because they aren't aware of all the tradeoffs involved?
I can't prove he's unaware, but I have yet to hear a single mention of any tradeoffs like these from Washington's governor. Every single rationale he has provided for his actions has solely been based on covid-19 infected and deaths numbers.
So the WA governor (which is where I live) is the one who declared expanded unemployment access, defined and modified the list of essential businesses and is constantly talking about what is preventing us from opening up the economy - and yes, that's the deaths you mentioned. And you aren't sure if he knows about the disadvantages of everything being closed, because he hasn't included any details on why he wants to work towards reopening everything? I don't even know where to start. I think that the idea that is unaware of these factors is simply ludicrous.
