Continuing the Lock-Down Is a Bad Idea, It Needs to End Now
We’ve Replaced One Crisis With Another
The cure might just end up being worse than the disease.
The UN recently warned that the global lockdown measures, limiting countries' ability for economic production and workers' ability to earn wages, could lead to an additional 130 million people on the brink of starvation by the end of the year.
Now that might not affect the US that much, but hunger isn’t the only consequence to worry about:
The worst unemployment got during the Great Recession was 15.3 million people. Currently, we’re already at 33 million, and there will be more.
Then, related to the hardship of unemployment, this study estimates that there were 4750 suicides connected to the Great Recession.
If the relation is linear, we could expect about 10,000 suicides related to the Coronavirus lockdown, so far.
“Without the lockdown, there will be even more deaths,” is an argument that will, of course, be brought up, and for good reason, as it is very likely true.
However, I actually think looking at this situation through binary assessments of death count or economic loss doesn’t do justice to the whole picture.
Wait, I just used binary assessments of mortality and economics to judge this situation. In fact, that was to demonstrate how ineffective it is.
Who’s to say what is worse: 55 thousand people dead, or 33 million people going destitute? Maybe that seems obvious, but really think about those millions of people without work; what are they going through?
Then, also, there’s the fact that we as a society already do cost-benefit analysis and have determined that there are certain amounts of death we will tolerate to allow some type of freedom.
I think the car-accident analogy that was being talked about a while ago was largely misinterpreted; it doesn’t matter that it’s not a perfect analogy, in that crashes aren’t contagious, what matters is that it is an example of cost-benefit analysis.
It’s an example of society concluding that 40 thousand deaths per year are an acceptable sacrifice for our collective freedom to drive. We do the same with the flu, which is contagious.
With that premise, we can do away with the binary argument that says if we save one life, it’s all worth it. And, if anyone is making this case, that if we lose, say, one million jobs, it’s not worth it. Both arguments are meaningless because there’s more to the picture; freedom.
How would people react if the federal government banned driving? I’m guessing there’d be protests, like there are now. Would the protesters be wrong?
Maybe. I’m not going to say that 40 thousand deaths are okay; neither is anyone else. So is it okay for the government to prevent those deaths?
No. The government shouldn’t have a say because we have the freedom to chose for ourselves if we want to risk being or causing one of those deaths.
The government can and should and does act to make driving safer through seatbelt and speeding laws, but they can’t go all the way because that would infringe on our freedom to choose our fate for ourselves.
Like driving, we are currently in a situation where our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness can’t all be perfectly ensured. In situations like this, it’s not the government’s choice to make about which we prioritize.
The government shouldn’t have a say in whether or not we risk our lives to make a living.
They should help make either choice safer through enforcing masks and social distancing rules in certain situations and providing stimulus checks to encourage self-quarantining, but they can’t go all the way and make our choices for us.
I’m sure some of you are thinking about this now so I’ll address it, contagion.
Obviously, those who don’t want to wear masks or social distance can and should be banned from being around those who do; we can’t allow each other to infringe on our rights, just as we can’t let the government to it. But, that’s not going to happen on a massive scale.
People who have a high risk or are extra worried will stay away from everyone and they’ll be safe.
People who want to work but are still worried about the virus will be responsible and careful and they’ll be as safe as they can be.
People who want to work and don’t care about the virus will need to abide by the rules of the private or public places they frequent or they’ll be, rightfully, criminalized.
We shouldn’t all hide in our homes because there are murderers outside. Likewise, we shouldn’t all hide in our homes because there are a few lunatics trying to spread the virus around.
This thing isn’t going to go away until we have a vaccine. Until then, people are going to continue dying, and it could be for years. Are you willing to be locked in your home by the government for years?
More on similar topics:
…while I condemn Trump for taking this action, I actually have a proposal for a more extreme action that I hope Trump takes in the future…
…Democrats throw away all the work the Senate had done and refuse to even debate it. But don’t worry, it gets worse, much worse…
…A universal health care system would remove people’s right to make choices about their own life by saying that the government knows best…
