Democracy is wonderful and all but it's simply too slow to use it for absolutely everything. Plus, I would argue that, when it comes to highly-specialized fields like virology, the "ignorant public" does still exist - Boris Johnson just demonstrated that even the best-educated in the world can be incredibly ignorant in this or that area of science.
Do we have fundamental civil right doing this crisis?
Go read any constitution of a democratic state, they all contain protection of activities that is being restricted as a part of the corona containment measures, and in many cases without any legislative process let alone that needed to change an constitution.
Representative Democracy always contains an explicit contract on where the governments mandate to regulate ends, which is often as important to the freedom of it's public then the mere presence of an vote for representatives.
Your first paragraph is a real argument. Do you want to dip into the actual US constitution and try to itemize which rights you agree we still have and which rights you're arguing we've lost? That would make sense to me. (I claim the second, third and fourth amendments are doing fine right now. If you want, you can pick one or more and say the government is infringing on them.)
The second and third paragraphs in your comment, I'm sorry, appear to be just fluff. Which specific constitution? What do the words actually say? We can read the real words in an actual constitution ... or we can generalize and, I'm sorry, in my opinion that amounts to blowing smoke.
You no longer have the right of assembly(article 20), nor freedom if movement(article 13) there is good reasons why this is restricted doing an pandemic but it's still an restriction of an fundamental right.
The us constitution without post 1965 caselaw and amendments is not defining an modern democracy as and modern civics almost universally equate the term democracy with the UN Charter of Human Rights.
Of cause you could use the old definition where any system of voting(even one where only 10% of the public have the right to vote) is an democracy but that would be pointless in an modern context.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is unfortunately riddled with qualifications and exceptions. Article 29 is especially problematic:
> (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
So after layout out various high-minded (if occasionally contradictory) ideals, they immediately follow up by saying that these "rights", which are apparently not universal and thus not really rights at all, are subject to broadly-defined "limitations" which amount to a laundry-list of excuses states have used throughout history to justify denying people their fundamental rights: "morality, public order and the general welfare". Has there ever been any infringement of the rights of speech, assembly, movement, or property which wasn't justified (publically, at least) on the basis of one of those categories?
If you strike out Article 29 as well as the "attacks upon his honour and reputation" part of Article 12 (which is directly contrary to freedom of speech), the "arbitrary" qualifiers in Articles 14, 15, and 17 which render the surrounding statements meaningless, the frankly irrelevant opinion statement "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society" in Article 16, and Articles 22 through 27—in their entirety—then you would actually have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights worthy of the name. The authors started out reasonably well but failed to resist the impulse to throw in one contradictory article after another toward the end. You can see this reflected in the style of the text: the early articles are short and to the point, but as you read further down the document they get longer and more complicated, and start talking more about obligations and limitations than actual rights.
The US Constitution may not be perfect but at least it didn't fall into the trap of trying to carve out exceptions and limitations, pre-justifying the infringement of fundamental rights whenever the exercise of that right becomes inconvenient for the state, or enshrining an entitlement to a certain standard of living or to specific goods or services which can only be provided by infringing on the rights of others.
