I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.
A persons right to pursue happiness does not trump other people's rights to do the same.
Willing spreading an infectious virus is not an act of nature.
Event still, this isn't HIV we're talking about here, and it will presumably be seasonal going forward. Most people who even contract this will walk away perfectly fine.
There are currently 36 million jobless claims from the shutdowns. How long be before streets everywhere become inundated with freshly homeless people? How long until people riot? When does the shutdown outweigh people's livelihood and freedom?
The shutdown isn't a solution, it's a way to buy time and prevent things from getting worse while we adapt and find solutions.
If you want to shift the debate from whether the shutdown has merit to how long it should last then it's a matter of judging the progress being made.
As for the nature of the virus, it's certainly not as deadly as HIV but it's a lot more infectious. Most people would be fine but if half the population is infected the resulting death toll will be enormous. I wouldn't presume it will be season either, from what I can tell the consensus is that we will be dealing with this until vaccination is widespread.
You can enforce it on how a government responds to natural events, however.
If your answer is no, please make the same argument but replace the word 'mask' with 'pants'.
The argument being made for warheads is the same as that for staying inside: not doing so would pose an outsize danger to others. Whether I agree or disagree isn't the point personally, I'm arguing that the curtailments follow from the same basic premise and are likely legal. We'll see how it plays out.