If they were only risking their own lives I would be much less upset. It is a free country and if you want to smoke cigarettes or go "free soloing" cliff climbing without ropes, that's your business. It is like the difference between driving without wearing a seat belt (risking only yourself), and driving drunk (risking innocent drivers in other cars)
Yes, it is interesting that this tension between individual freedom and societal safety is a classic left/right thing. In the case of seatbelts - after a law change in the UK - everyone settled down to doing the thing that saves ones own (and passengers, if they wear them) lives pretty quickly. No real enforcement needed, just a few adverts pointing out how bad you'd feel if you killed your wife / child / etc. But, without that law, no-one would have done it. Now everyone except a few idiots accepts seatbelts as being sensible safety, and no-one quarrels with the law.
I'd guess that in the US (at least some states) there would be a big fuss about freedom if there were such a law. And less justification for it too, because the state pays less when people have auto accidents - but it still pays because ERs are free.
Now consider wearing masks or social distancing. There is much more reason to make wearing these mandatory, because they have a much larger effect on other people's health - and also on the economy. While COVID rates stay high, one way or another, the economy will not flourish. If everyone wears masks R is lower and the measures needed to keep rates low are less severe.
And yet, in the US, there is strong resistance to removing people's freedom not to wear masks. Not surprising, there is similar resistance to removing people's freedom to kill each other with guns despite massive evidence that you are less safe from criminals in societies with guns (where home-owner and criminals have and use them, but criminals often win) than in countries without guns, where few criminals (certainly not the common or garden burglars) have them. Guns, as defence, are good only if others don't have them. As in many non-zero-sum games, if everyone has guns, then everyone is worse of. And societies without widespread gun use, where using guns in act of robbery etc vastly increases sentences, have fewer deaths. It is still a horrible experience being burgled - but not a fatal one.
In microcosm we see the same formula here at schools with knives. Children are put under a lot of pressure to carry knives "for defence". And they do it because they are scared. Yet, it is well known, when a child is attacked by another child with a knife, by far the safest position to be in is not to have a knife yourself. Not easy to convince children of that, but it is possible.
Anyway, just as freedom to carry knives or guns goes with a tragedy of the commons, where if everyone does it society becomes more violent, and rightly everyone feels less safe, so freedom not to wear masks impacts the whole of society including the wearer if done by most people.
And it is the same equation with vaccination. If enough people get vaccinated everyone becomes much safer. Yet individually, if everyone else is vaccinated, and therefore the disease level is low, there is little risk to not being vaccinated.
So there is a balance between freedom and safety in any society, and you can understand people will naturally and properly have different positions in how much they value the two things and therefore what they think is the proper balance. The right wing arguments tend to ignore these "tragedy of the commons" arguments where what everyone does has such a big effect, even though the individual effect is more difficult to see.
In the case of masks, as many members of the White house are now realising, even on an individual level wearing masks can be pretty obviously important.
Trump's rallies without masks or distancing are not a good example of people exercising their right to God-given freedom. They are a sign of people so misunderstanding cause and effect that they do something individually and collectively very harmful. rather like people running around shooting bullets at each other. Maybe they will all miss. Much more likely, if the crowd is big, not. you'd need the median age of Trump ralliers and a few other things to work out how many bullets in this case are likely to hit.
if we could somehow quarantine all Trump supporters on an island it would matter only to them, they could have a super-spreading event, 0.5% would die, and that would be that. Alas they live in the community and here the bullet analogy breaks down. those wounded but not obviously so go on firing invisible bullets into the people around them for about a week.
I'm quite interested; do we have anyone here who would justify holding such events?