In Soviet times, the totalitarian rule of Stalin had a lot of trouble with regulating the lives of rural farmers. In the end they gave up and the farmers just k

In Soviet times, the totalitarian rule of Stalin had a lot of trouble with regulating the lives of rural farmers. In the end they gave up and the farmers just kept observing their seasonal work schedules, banned holidays, and days of worship. Honestly I can see the merit of keeping medical records for public health reasons, but no one can deny that governments and corporations are corrupt. Rural Americans enjoy a lot of freedoms, but they also cannot access many of the higher paying jobs. The internet has changed this. Cities are definitely ground zero for totalitarian measures. Is this totalitarian? It's invasive, but it's under the pretense of public health. Where do we draw the line? I appreciate that the users on this forum approach the crisis with a critical lens rather than blindly following liberal/conservative party lines. I don't think there are many people who are against the idea of preventing disease. There should be synthesis between those who are concerned for public health and those who are concerned with losing their previously held rights as human beings. Instead we have blind political partisanship over a public health issue that should not be partisan. EDIT: Alright it seems this opinion is really unpopular. I can't even downvote other users, but I'd prefer to hear a critical response rather than a knee-jerk reaction. I support public health and vaccines. I support the right to worship, work, and travel freely. I am not religious, out of work, nor do I plan on traveling anytime soon. Why can't we have both? I would sincerely like to hear a good argument for closing and actively policing houses of worship yet allowing the patronage of major retailers. This is the situation in the USA, and it worked similarly in the USSR.