I might question this "necessary evil" narrative, or at least nobody has tried to balance likely effects of this in terms of transmission rate reduction (never mind likely deaths and serious outcomes) vs economic damage (which is hardly great for human health) vs general affront to personal liberties. Hard numbers, risk factors, experiments conducted on rates according to restrictions... I want that and a run through of the logic involved.
Normally just get "it's good for you, shut up and take your medicine" with the odd sound byte and that rankles -- the governments of the world have proven to be a bunch of clueless cunts* that pay no attention to anybody (sometimes even those padding their pockets) at every available opportunity for decades now. No inclination they are acting in either my** or the collective best interest. Equally if they truly cared about life, health and happiness they would have banned, mandated and otherwise cajoled so many more outcomes and would have done it decades ago. The means by which they would have done them would be subject to debate and run up against various political philosophies but still could have been achieved.
*and having met various ones from lowly MEPs to local councillors to regional MPs to named positions to lords of the realm they might occasionally (and only very occasionally) have some measure of domain expertise but general common sense seems to be ritually removed if it existed at all.
**none of this really bothers me. Most of my family are nice people that I would go help if they called, and I have no "family comes first" mindset whatsoever, but I don't care about visiting them. My economics are as poor as they ever were, but ultimately no worse (retirement and home ownership was never an option anyway), and most I know are not really suffering in any great capacity either.