"It's okay" (or should be okay) for people to go about their business as they see fit per their own informed decision-making.
what if their business involves indirectly causing other people to die? presumably other people who dont deserve to die
Ancitipated argument: Nobody can endanger anyone with COVID19 infection without the other person implicitly consenting to take on that risk. That is, if I'm gallivanting about town making myself a potential vector, the only people I might spread it to are also people choosing not to socially isolate.
Counterpoint: If we assume a miniarchist libertopia with a night watchman state (ie one that enforces contracts and protects private property rights but has no redistributive/social welfare functions), people will be implicitly forced into exposing themselves to infection by state violence.
If a business decides to stay open (in the absence of a bailout or broadly enforced debt forbearance, most of them would rather than go bankrupt), an employee has the choice between going to work and maybe getting the virus or being fired. Among other things, for a lot of people losing their income would mean being evicted, something that happens because the state is backing the landlord's right to their property. You can say that the worker has a choice, but it is between risking serious illness or death vs. agents of the state forcibly kicking you out of your home.
