I guess people got scared enough to throw Americans in concentration camps during WW2, so I suppose there is a precedent to go off of for the government to grossly abuse its power.
So, you are saying current restrictions are equivalent? That is quite the stretch. Your point does not even follow from the discussion at hand, so I feel liberated to stray as well.
The current restrictions are mild even compared to things they are similar with in WWII. With people like you we will have to bend our knee to China very shortly because rationing and directing manufactures to only make war material well be considered gross government overreach.
You must despise border restrictions as these limit the free market. You must also be an ardent anti Trumper as tarrifs and trade wars also interfere with free markts. That, or you are making arguments of convenience and masquerading them as arguments of conviction. As desperate as that stretch is to create a straw man from your position, it is consistent with the standards of debate set by you.
The idea that a free market is some how complete separate from government and that no government action should modify it is as irrational as the tree huggar idea that humans are not part of the environment and should strive to avoid any alteration to it.
That said, governments should limit any meddling in markets and only do so when there is a compelling reason, such as border protection. What is a compelling reason should always be open for debate, but that requires a level of nuance beyound the "Thou shall not kill" level that recognizes that killing can be justified (such as self defense and war).