And yet, plenty of controls to protect people don't turn into permanent revocations of human rights. Why, when this argument comes up, do we conveniently forget about those? Do you really think that the plan of governments around the world is to cripple their GDP output and keep everyone locked inside as some sort of mass population control exercise? And a pandemic that would benefit from these types of actions was just a great time to pull the trigger without anyone noticing?
I honestly don't understand this argument. On one end of the spectrum you have complete freedom with no laws, police & fire departments, public education, militaries, government welfare programs, airport security, etc. On the other hand, you have whatever world you fear we'll end up in when all of our rights are stripped. It would seem to me that most first world countries sit somewhere between those two, because we've generally decided there are many freedoms we're happy to give up (some temporarily, some permanently) for the betterment of society overall. Particularly those where one person's freedom would directly impact another person's right to life.
You can certainly say that you think we should open the country back up and that these restrictions are unnecessary, and provide your supporting data for that argument. But suggesting that this is some fundamental violation of human rights feels like quite a reach.