I think we're talking past each other on this. You first said:
"We know enough about this virus to know that mass gatherings are a terrible idea" - then I said:
"If we all know it's dangerous, why do we need men with guns preventing us from gathering?" - now you're saying:
"If we all know it's dangerous, we wouldn't need men with guns preventing us from gathering."
Do we or do we not know that "it's dangerous"? Or is it the case that you have a different threshold for/interpretation of the danger so you need people with guns preventing me from going out to enforce your threshold/interpretation on me? Do you perhaps see how I might consider that problematic?
It's not all that interesting. Influenza is usually pretty boring and it doesn't result in placing millions of people under pseudo-house arrest.
Correct
Sure, anything is possible. However, the IFR of COVID19 looks to be around 0.1% (1M cases * 55 under-ascertainment rate from the Stanford paper / 55K fatalities). I do not believe the harms are sufficient to begin restricting freedoms. Lots of people disagree with me though.