The civil liberties vs pandemic narrative strikes me as more of a political red herring rather than some real trade off being made, at least in the US. I skimmed the paper to see what specific liberties they were talking about. My answer to most of their posed questions is basically wu.

> I am willing to relax privacy protections and let the government access my personal data during a crisis like the current one, in order to allow the government to make timely and accurate decisions.

A moot point in the US, as there are few privacy protections to begin with. I can hardly see a contact tracing app becoming mandatory here. And while I'm generally concerned about Surveillance Valley's ever-growing control, I'm not specifically concerned if the results of its surveillance are used to inform a public health crisis.

> I am willing to suspend democratic procedures and give the President [or Prime Minister] more power during a crisis like the current one, in order to ensure swift government actions.

This is laughable as there has been very little federal government action in the US. But answering in the context of state governors, I still don't see how the democratic procedures have or will have been suspended. The executive has the power to execute, the legislature and the People are slower acting but at this point have had plenty of time to countermand. The closest example of this dynamic seems to be Wisconsin, where the courts took away powers from the governor, which is just the system working as intended.

> I am willing to support the government controlling the media during a crisis like the current one, in order to ensure effective and uniform communication between the government and citizens.

Also laughable given that much disinformation has come from the government itself. Authoritative government sources don't need the control of the media to get heard. Probably the closest we can on this topic is to flip it around to censorship of private party disinformation. But flipping around would have totally changed the responses.

> I am willing to tolerate public health risks in order to participate in elections and other civic duties, even during a crisis like the current one.

Once again nobody is talking about suspending any elections. What other civic duties are there? Jury duty comes to mind, but once again that's flipped - the practical question would be whether the state should force people to expose themselves to the pandemic in order to run its courts. Protests haven't been suspended, although there have been calls to when it's conveniently the other team doing the protesting.

> I am willing to endure substantial economic losses during a crisis like the current one,in order to maintain the health and well-being of society as a whole.

This strikes me as the closest to what people mean when they say "civil liberties", and it is indeed a point of debate that has been argued to bits. Horribly dishonestly from all sides, IMO. And I feel this paper itself will be part of that, used to overstate the economic argument as one about general civil liberties, even though it references few other liberties. The sad truth about civil liberties is that most people do not actually exercise their civil liberties most of the time.