OP - I think what you are thinking of is collectivism, more than communism or socialism which is related but not quite the same.
Every society strikes some balance between what we require toward the collective, and what we say properly belongs to individuals to decide. When you too far in either direction is can cause difficulties, but there is a range that seems workable. Some societies also encourage people to naturally think more collectively than others.
In most western democaries we've defined some of the basics that belong to individuals. Rights around belief, speech, freedom of movement, bodily autonomy (for example in medical decisions), some property rights, and freedom of association being among those. They aren't identical everywhere but all are typically defined and limits have to be justified by strong reasons.
The pandemic has touched on a lot of these, and I would argue with very little serious discussion. There are mechanisms to restrict many of these rights in certain circumstances, but typically those are delineated and limited, especially by time. Disasters, pandemics, wars, are all examples, so this one fits in. But there has been little discussion over how long it would be appropriate to keep restricting people in these ways, or even just open discussion in terms of basic democratic principles. Even during the BLM protests, where that would have been a very valid point, I didn't see it discussed much in those terms.
But I would say that generally we have been in a period of increasing authoritarianism in most of these areas, particularly by many people who would consider themselves progressives - largely this is driven by the logic of identity politics. This is the same group that seems least inclined to be wary or even question covid restrictions.
But a lot of it is also very fear driven and I've seen any number of people who are locked into an anxiety cycle.