So what's the line?? Is it 10 million? 1% of the human population? If so, why should it be 1% and not 0.1%? Because it seems more significant?
If we're faced with a situation in which we can collectively give up 1% of our lives to save 5%, I'd say that's worth mandating.
1% for 2%, I'd grit my teeth and say we need pretty solid data on that 2%.
1% for 1%, nah.
I don't think coronavirus was even close to that, if you just look at the full lockdown and the reduced ones (e.in the UK and ignore all of the associated mitigations, that was ~1% of our collective lifespan given up. Did it save 1% of people?
I don't think it was even close. And that's not even taking into account opportunity cost. Most of the 'savings' here comes from the fact that by locking down you're also barricading the vulnerable away.
Or to put it another way, even if the virus was not deadly at all, but it could take people out for a few weeks at a time, that would be reason enough to impose mask mandates, get a vaccine rolled out, tell people to work from home for awhile. Especially if people needed hospital services.
Offering people a vaccine is an obvious win. The only way in which it could not be is if the virus were so mild that the R&D and distribution cost weren't worth it. That's obviously not the case for coronavirus.
The other things are just authoritarian desires that you're not able to even quantify.
The fact that you'd delete my career and social bonds for the sake of a theoretical virus that might just put people in bed for a while means this discussion is over, I don't engage with terrorists, good luck.