I share your concerns about authoritarians using this occasion to bend things in a bad direction but are you asserting that the virus is not a real thing or that some group with authoritarian aims is behind its release? Because if the virus is a real thing then surely protesting by gathering into crowds and falling victim doesn’t harm the bad guys right? Help me understand if you don’t mind, serious questions it’s hard to word things so they don’t sound incendiary to one side or the other (or both) since the issue is so politically charged.

It's a perfectly reasonable set of questions.

Please note I stress that I am commenting on the virus "regime".

Is the virus real? I think we should assume it is real, regardless of the facts. Let's say it is real.

Should we concern ourselves with whether it is (a) natural phenomena, or (b) man-made;

and whether regardless of its provenance, the spread of the virus was due to (a) chance events, or (b) intentional release?

Again, I say, to seriously answer any of these questions is an unreasonable burden. So, let's call it an "act of god".

Now, we are at the point to discuss sensible response, rational response, reasonable response, to a collective health issue: a virus that has reached pandemic stage and posses certain risk probabilies across various demographics.

Does the above scenario mandate that governmental norms be bent if not broken? For example, is it acceptable that from now on society will be governed by executive decrees and not legislative bodies?

How long should we tolerate such encroachments on what we know to be the basis of free societies?

Should not a health care matter of such grave import and impact on our lives be subject to the input of a wide range of experts in related subject matters?

What "authority" has designated certain institutions, such as the Imperial College as an example, as fonts of indisputable claims regarding the gravity of the situation and required remedies?

Why are dissenting experts and workers in the "frontlines" subject to media blackout, de-platforming, and loss of income?

I could go on and practically write a little book here. But that should suffice as to "why" some of us are rather concerned, to say the least.

You asked a lot of questions that seem to imply a lot of conspiracy-driven actions, but you didn't really state any definite opinions or present any evidence that supports those implications. If you're going to "write a little book here," you're going to have to say what you believe and present the evidence for why you believe it.

That is a laughable mischaracterization of the post to which you are responding.

These are legitimate questions that definitively need to be asked and answered in context of a complete workover of our societies, instead of being dishonestly dismissed.

You said you had so much information that you could write a little book. Is your book going to consist entirely of questions that appeal to thoughts of conspiracy and shadowy action by oppressing forces? Or will you simply state your opinions about how things are and support those with evidence?

That is your characterization and borderline trolling. Only a troll would claim that insisting on legislative oversight of executive, to take one item, is indicative of irrational fears.

I think it's quite a bit more than bending in a bad direction. Many countries are still under their emergency authoritarian restrictions - to this day, troops are patrolling the streets of Melbourne to make people stay inside.