A Public Health Emergency Justifies Limiting Civil Liberties

It is clear as day from our examples in real life that the coronavirus has killed hundreds and thousands of people. To value a vague "liberty" more than life seems absurd. If you have no life, you cannot have any liberties. The dead have no rights. Unless con can prove that a mere corpse has rights, then my idea stands strong. As such, life is more important than liberties. Civil liberties restrictions in order to resolve the national health emergency are very important. Already, China has managed to reduce their infected numbers down severely by enforcing quarantine. In contrast, America, the "freest country" of them all, has the most cases. All of this is common knowledge and I believe no sources are necessary to back up. As you can see, China is doing much better than America and has lost much fewer lives. For the families and the people suffering under the lost of their people, isn't merely stopping a few freedoms far more justifiable than doing nothing and letting people die to the virus?

I move the floor to con.

I will set up my point, and then attack my opponent's.
My Points
1. Civil liberties is so broad that it justifies anything.
A. This is exactly the issue we're seeing in a multitude of nations. China, Thailand, Cambodia, Venezuela, Bangladesh, and Turkey are all arresting political opposition, journalists, and medical professionals who question the official response. (1) This has two issues within it.
I. If no one can question the actions taken by a state, then no one can question if the civil liberties need to be stopped. Whenever the pandemic is over, how are citizens of these nations supposed to question if they can stop quarantining and socially distancing if none of these nations allow people to question the actions of the state.
II. It actually leads to worse health responses. Firstly, nations that silence critics and experts from speaking up can silence their numbers from happening. US intelligence agencies have already discovered China has lied about their numbers, so any argument their doing better is, at best, highly doubtful. (2) Actually, any data on Covid isn't going to be meaningful because so many countries have different standards on how they test, who they test, access to tests, and reliability of tests. (3) Silencing health experts does nothing but make these numbers more muddled and stops us from finding the best way to deal with the pandemic.
B. Some nations, like Hungary, are justifying it to take full authoritarian control. The current Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, has made it where he can rule by decree and imprison anyone who spreads false information can be imprisoned for up to five years. This directly ties into the first point.
Sources
1. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/03/how-authoritarians-are-exploiting-covid-19-crisis-grab-power
2. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-intelligence-found-china-misrepresented-coronavirus-stats-report-2020-4
3. https://thethaiger.com/coronavirus/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-reporting-the-stats-of-covid-19

1) Ancap worries that people will be unable to object, however, remember that America and other democracies allow for people to protest and react differently. All his arguments about government grabbing power are arguably problems with the government themselves rather than merely the act of limiting liberties. Even in these extreme cases, you could argue that it helps prevent the panic. If hundreds and thousands of medical researchers are complaining that the cure can't be found, that the numbers are in the millions, it would likely cause panic and revolt, leading to greater exposure and absurd problems than merely stiffly preventing people from telling lies about coronavirus. Con also says that he thinks the power grab will allow them to retain an unnatural control after the emergency, however, since the emergency is already over, the limiting of liberties is not relevant to his side of the debate. 

2) Con asserts that Covid is not that bad, but it has already caused million of infected worldwide (" current outbreak of COVID-19, has affected over 2164111 people and killed more than 146,198 people in more than 200 countries throughout the world.") , massive job and finance lost (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/05/financial-and-health-impacts-of-covid-19-vary-widely-by-race-and-ethnicity/), I could go on and on. To reject the influence of covid is absurd. People join under the social contract to gain certain protection in exchange for liberty. That has how it always has been. Without any government, people could steal and kill without worry, and finances to support people would be few and far in between. Some level of government control is definitively necessary. Remember that the title is speaking of Emergency. 

As a scholarly research article notes, the public health emergency is when " A situation becomes emergent when its health consequences have the potential to overwhelm routine community capabilities to address them. Thus, the proposed definition focuses on situations “whose scale, timing, or unpredictability threatens to overwhelm routine capabilities.”" con vouches for people's liberties, but does not consider the fact that the person's autonomy could be lost due to suffering under the disease. When you are dead, you cannot have liberties. When you are sick in the hospital and need support from doctors, any "liberty" to freely move around are also restricted. Without the government's protection to step in and take action, leading you to potentially get sick, you lose your liberty unwilling in any case. So con's case defeats itself. 

3) Counter proposal. This is interesting but once again side steps the ability to refute my argument. If you are able to pay someone $100 for their "liberty of being able to go outside", then that is equivalent to restricting their liberty, if only adding compensation for it. The fact that con agrees that it would be much better for government to give compensation gives a solution to my case and displays that people would actually be happy to get rid of their liberties for personal purchase and entertainment, whatever they use their money for. So Con's counter defeats his own case. 

Even though China may be lying about its number, numerous democratic nations that encouraged wearing masks and social distancing help enforce the lack of Covid, especially in Europe. As https://www.afar.com/magazine/europes-new-covid-travel-rules-explained notes, they even prevent travel from location to location, which is arguably a civil liberty of a kind. Even all of the continent combined is merely 5.7 million cases (https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases), while US is definitively bypassing 7.5 million and even higher. It's clear that the restriction of the liberties are definitive in the impact of helping people prevent getting the virus and suffering. Con's case is contradictory and self-negating. 

Extend, vote for pro

I don't get to answer, which is fully my fault. Time got to me, and that happens to all of us. This is a formal concession because of that, but I would like a rechallenge from Seldiora if they agree, same rules are fine except for 7 days on responses. If you want to keep the first two speeches the same, I'm down for that as well. Up to you.