I think your second point, in particular, is underrated. With stringent (and credible) time limits, of the sort "these measures are guaranteed to end by Feb 1,

I think your second point, in particular, is underrated. With stringent (and credible) time limits, of the sort "these measures are guaranteed to end by Feb 1, 2021", more severe impositions on privacy/liberty could be tolerable. A big worry in any crisis is that the "temporary" measures turn out not to be temporary. A credible way to guarantee that they are, in fact, temporary, would be a fantastic development in society's response to pandemics etc. (It's hard for me to imagine what a credible guarantee would look like -- if you purchase privacy-invading software X from a company, then after the crisis is past, that software still exists! Just by the fact that the software exists, it's now easier to re-institute its use...) The flip side of this: right now, in the absence of such a guarantee, it's awfully difficult (at least in my mind, and many of the commenters here) to justify any erosion of privacy laws+practices. This is simply because the erosion will presumably be permanent, while the crisis is not.