Replies

"...In sum, government should not have the power to lock us down in our homes even during a widespread, uncontained outbreak of an infectious disease… But there are valid steps our government should take to increase the capacity of our government-controlled healthcare system…"

To unpack this quote, there are two parts to consider:

The first part, about locking us down in our homes, is a problem of personal liberty. I have always been of the opinion that, if this virus warranted it by killing 30-50% of the people in infected, you would not have to mandate masking, quarantining, and vaccination.

Not only would people be doing these things of their own free will after performing their own risk versus benefit analysis. Seeing corpses laid in front of houses for removal would compel most normal people to mask, quarantine, and submit to vaccination.

And they wouldn't be doing it against their will.

They would be wearing hazmat suits if they left their houses, barricading themselves in their houses with firearms if they were home, and clamoring vocally for vaccines because they would understand that without those things, up to half of the people who are infected will die.
For the second part, about the tacit support by the author regarding government intervention into healthcare during a crisis-this is a completely different aspect and does bear directly on the role of government. Does anyone doubt that the government should step into a severe crisis to increase capacity and relax regulation and red tape in a real pandemic where 50% of infected people are dying?

Of course not. We would expect it.

If corpses were being piled in the street, OF COURSE we would expect the government, industry, and the citizenry to step in at all levels!

BUT THERE ARE TWO KEY POINTS HERE:

KEY POINT 1: THIS VIRUS DOES NOT RISE TO THAT LEVEL THAT JUSTIFIES THAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
KEY POINT 2: WHO OR WHAT DECIDES WHAT THAT THRESHOLD SHOULD BE?