Like I said, I can't tell what your intent is there. So, ignore what I said, but you might want to clarify your position. People don't like being told what to do... so? Why not? If it's for their own damn good, why not just do it? If you just go, "I'm being told to do this, so I won't," then you are hopeless.
Likely, my intent is the same as yours, except that I think the reason is more than just "freedumb." That is, countries are caught between lockdowns that can affect the economy and the opposite which can lead to higher infections and deaths. Hence, one sees countries like Sweden with hardly any lockdowns but high death rates and now low figures, Vietnam with rigid followed by calibrated decreasing lockdowns leading to low infections and death rates, the Philippines with extended and calibrated lockdowns but high infection and death rates relative to several neighboring countries but much lower than what is taking place in several countries in the Americas and in Europe, and so on.
For the U.S., besides "freedumb" there's also a federal process where local governments call the shots (similar in the Philippines, but because some cities are literally beside each other they end up listening to each other; in contrast, in places like Vietnam the Communist Party calls the shots, while that and places like Thailand have had programs to counter epidemics and pandemics ready since 2005, and democracies from South Korea to Taiwan had between two to four decades of martial law, thus encouraging their societies to be more disciplined and to follow authorities), far larger amounts available for social safety nets (similar to Britain, where part or all of lost income may be covered by the state, unlike in developing countries where there is very little available), the relatively lower population densities in many areas (in contrast to parts of Asia which have the opposite), and so on.
I even remember one study from a few years back showing that only the U.S., Australia, and a few other countries are prepared to deal with pandemics. Apparently, it referred to resources available and not specific policies needed for lockdowns due to lack of antibody resistance or vaccines, which explains mixed results for infection and mortality rates. And then there's estimated economic losses.
With that, my position would be it's because of "freedumb" and maybe many more factors. What I find clearer is that something like a plan that gives emergency powers to centralized authorities is the common denominator among countries that have combinations of high population density coupled with significant numbers of human migration (e.g., urban migration, overseas returning workers, tourists, etc.) to experience relatively lower death rates and infections, not to mention means connected to those powers, such as quarantine centers, calibrated and localized lockdowns (but done given estimated economic losses, availability of medical facilities, etc., and replaced by masks and probably no need for social distancing, which is taking place in Vietnam, while in the Philippines it's masks, social distancing, and even face shields, and likely not because people are obedient or that the government is authoritarian but because the costs of getting sick can be very high, and there aren't a lot of health facilities available), effective contact tracing (e.g., especially with mass surveillance, as seen in places like Taiwan, South Korea, and even Vietnam, but difficult in places like the Philppines, Indonesia, and even India due to lack of infrastructure), and so on.