It's a basic public health measure during emergence of a novel communicable disease. No one would question locking down a small town temporarily if it was airb

It's a basic public health measure during emergence of a novel communicable disease. No one would question locking down a small town temporarily if it was airborne ebola. You can argue about severity and what is an appropriate response, but to just say lockdown is harmful and off the table no matter how severe and contagious seems insane and suicidal for a society. I'm not responding to what Facebook is doing in the article or coronavirus lockdown response specificly, just your statement: 'Seriously, they're called "lockdowns," because they are the very opposite of things you want to normalize in a free society.' In a free society you still can't drive on the wrong side of the road. You can't go into a business and fire off shots in random directions (maybe won't hit anyone, like you maybe won't infect anyone vulnerable or infect someone else who will go on to during a deadly outbreak).