I don't think preventing the almost guaranteed deaths of thousands is qualified as a "little" safety.
I'm in a country that has banned all unnecessary movement, traffic/pedestrian accidents have dropped dramatically, it has saved magnitudes more from dying than from covid-19.
Logically, all movement be banned then? Keen to hear a rationalisation for 10 traffic lives vs 1 contagious virus life.
10 people have died in 3 months since the virus was first tested here. 1500 have died on the roads. I'm interested in the sort of person who would stand up and decree one life worth more than others. Please justify the logic behind such selections.
That being said, there's a lot we can do without infringing on freedoms too much. I think South Korea has a good model for handling disease spread, and The Netherlands has a good model for encouraging cycling and protecting cyclists from cars, both of which lead to lower vehicular deaths. Both countries were able to improve things without significantly disrupting society.
Yeah, maybe tens of thousands of people will die a few years before they would normally die without drastic measures, but the cost to save those lives doesn't seem to be worth it.