“Protecting individual rights from government overreach is at the core of what sets the US apart from the rest of the world. But the ‘liberty’ promised by the Declaration of Independence is interfering with ‘life’ and ‘pursuit of happiness’ in ways the Founding Fathers could never have imagined.” — CNN (slightly paraphrased; read original article here)
It’s a fine line, one usually not walked perfectly, but a good test of any restraint on our individual freedom is to ask whether it’s “reasonable.”
At the moment, two domestic crises are dominating the news cycle and commanding our attention: Gun violence, and the pandemic.
“Far more deadly … than any military conflict, [a] gun war is raging in US cities and suburbs, in schools, and offices, at churches and grocery stores. Courts have sided with the people over public health in the pandemic as well as in the gun war. States are all over the map on both. Some Americans are still under relatively strict Covid restrictions. Others are in states that have no restrictions at all,”
the CNN article states. And the American people are angrily divided, mostly along partisan lines, on both issues. We’ve experienced bitter divisions before — over slavery, segregation and civil rights, the Vietnam War, and any number of other issues, large and small, many of which also have life-and-death implications. We’re a pluralistic society, 330 million strong, and we’re not going to agree on everything. The genius of our system is its mechanisms for working things out.
I don’t agree with Democrats on far-reaching gun control. Some regulation of firearms makes sense: Universal background checks, waiting periods for gun purchases, and bans on “ghost” guns and bump stocks. I see no reason for civilians to possess military weapons without a license and demonstrated need, but that horse is out of the barn, and I believe an assault weapon ban — if enacted — would be universally ignored.
I don’t agree with Republicans on Covid-19 restrictions. They’re prioritizing keeping businesses open over saving lives. That doesn’t work for me, if my life becomes one of those to be sacrificed. Gun violence, like Covid-19, is a public health crisis; the two crises have much in common. But a virus has no friends, and doing everything we can to end the pandemic ought to be a no-brainer. There’s no good reason for us not to be together on this. No one should object to being deprived of viral infection, debilitating illness, hospitalization, or death.
So why don’t we agree on Covid-19 safety measures? Part of it, initially, is because the burdens were unequally distributed; the young were being asked to sacrifice jobs, incomes, social lives, and personal freedoms because old people were dying. But that’s changing; SARS-CoV-2 respects no age boundaries, and it’s now the young who are showing up at ERs and hospitals in overwhelming numbers, in large measure because they flouted the Covid-19 safety measures. Maybe they thought they were bulletproof? They weren’t.
A frequent commenter to this blog suggested (here) that “people have had enough and realize there is some degree of social control and hocus pocus involved in some of this.” I disagree. The best available science may be imperfect, but it’s not “hocus pocus.” The “this” he’s referring to is the recommendations of leading medical experts based on that science. “Social control” is appropriate to keep people from harming others, and if you get sick and die from Covid-19, or recover but run up a huge medical bill you can’t pay, other people will be harmed. In any event, life is full of social control; all society have rules for the general welfare. You can’t drive on pedestrian sidewalks; you can’t throw your trash into the public street. So why would you think infection prevention measures should be different?
Dr. Birx said most of the Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. could have been avoided. Specifically, she said “better adherence to public health guidelines — including mask-wearing and social distancing — could’ve saved the lives of many of the 450,000 people (and counting) in the US who have died since” the initial surge of cases. (See story here.) I can’t say with total confidence she’s right, but she’s an authority on the subject, and knows a lot more about it than I do.
The same commenter said, “I have not had covid and since I have not been a host cannot give the disease to anyone.” He’s wrong. We’ve known for months that people can transmit the virus to others without knowing they have it; in fact, over half of all infections in the U.S. happen that way (see story here). He also seems to think that once people are vaccinated they can act normally again. Maybe eventually, but we’re not there yet. Not enough people have been vaccinated yet, and those who have can still carry the infection and spread it; they’re less likely to, but vaccination doesn’t eliminate that risk. And again, it’s others they’re putting at risk.
Finally, let’s revisit the purpose of face masks. Trump’s CDC director, Dr. Robert Redfield, said last summer, “These face masks are the most important, powerful public health tool we have, and I will continue to appeal for all Americans, all individuals in our country, to embrace these face coverings. … We have clear scientific evidence they work and they are our best defense.” That was before vaccines became available, but looking ahead to that time, he added that masks “may even be more effective than a COVID-19 vaccine” to prevent the spread of Covid-19 (see story here). Initially, masks were mandated to keep carriers from infecting others; later, it was determined they also protect wearers from getting infected, but the primary purpose of masks has always been to prevent spread. That’s why wearing a mask in public isn’t a personal preference, but a social requirement.
This shouldn’t be a political issue. Those who’ve turn it into one are asserting their personal freedom trumps my (and your) safety. I don’t agree with that, and I won’t vote for a party or candidates who espouse that. In my view, that’s not being a responsible citizen; it’s being childish.