and you want to ignore (your choice) any effect on the pandemic that measures taken thus far have had and they are NOT zero. You don't get to ignore the whole problem and cry false equivalency. You also can't claim extended hardship due to "economic models" that haven't yet come to bear while simultaneously dismissing models that had extreme mitigation measures taken.

You are also intentionally ignoring or giving NO credence to the financial mitigation strategies started or what their effects might be.

The social shaming claim/complaint I'll grant you and I'm sorry some people's feelings are being hurt by people that give dirty looks or yell at people thought to be breaking measures or other shame put on people who purposely break the suggestions or in some cases restrictions on social distancing.

If you felt I was ascribing sovereign citizen mentality to you then I apologize as I was ascribing it to the mentality that exists in those types of people who see any law, regulation or attempt to balance freedom and the public good as "infringing my rights". It's not a valid argument and I saw no attempt at nuance in your post as it was all about "rights" when the actual discussion IS.

Restrictions vs. public safety is and always has been the discussion regarding this pandemic.

There is no false equivalency unless someone wants to cherry pick what to include and what to ignore and do so to not have to address the legitimacy of both sides (or more sides) of an issue.