The world has changed. Over the last two months we have seen a response to a crisis unlike anything in modern history. Plagues, pestilence and disease are not new, but the response to this particular virus is unprecedented. While there have been regional responses to disease in the past, globalization and social media provide rich soil for world-wide and real time responses. We could speculate as to why this response has been so extreme, but the more important question I believe is where we go from here and what are the standards for determining that path.
The path forward is a murky one. Those in leadership have to make difficult choices, with some oversimplifying the choice as choosing between physical well-being over economic well-being. Unfortunately, however, the choice is not that simple. One thing that framework suggests is that physical well-being was assured before this crisis began. It assumes that no one was dying before this virus started sweeping the globe, which is obviously not true.
In response, leadership asked people to stay at home to protect the vulnerable populations and give the healthcare system space to meet demand. The goal of social distancing was clear – to flatten the curve and to not overwhelm the healthcare system. Flattening the curve and protecting the vulnerable are worthy and achievable goals that everyone should strive to help accomplish. But remember, the stated goal was never to eliminate death or sickness.
Now however, two paths seem to be emerging in the way forward: open up the economy with measures of protection or keep lockdowns in place until safety can be achieved. In order to achieve safety, the definition of safety has to be determined. What if what is safe for one is not safe for all? Is a vaccine the only hope for reopening society? What if someone doesn’t want the vaccine? Will they be mandated to take it in order to achieve the desired level of safety? These are all difficult questions to wrestle with, but one thing is certain: humans have a 100% death rate; so, I think we would all agree that the goal of zero deaths from any virus is an impossible standard. So how many deaths are ok?
Let’s look at the numbers for the flu for some perspective. (Before you start launching tomatoes, I’m not comparing the viruses themselves, just the numbers.) So even with the very best medicine can offer, a vaccine with about a 40% effective rate[1], and years for people to build up antibodies, as many as 61,000 people die every year in the US of the flu[2]. And yet, each flu season, as a society we carry on with life as normal. Some people put great effort into decreasing their chances of sickness – increased sanitizing regimes, avoiding large crowds, taking natural supplements or over the counter medications. Some people, however, take no precautions and take their chances with the possibilities of getting the virus. Even in isolated incidents, some schools have closed for a short period of time for extra sanitation measures if a particularly high outbreak has occurred. Up until now, Americans have generally accepted this scenario of tens of thousands of people dying of one disease as normal, albeit sad, reality.
The data from this virus is hard to pin down, but here are the things we know:
- The death projections in the US went from 2.2 million in the worst-case scenarios to about 60,000, or the same level as the flu.[3]
- The death numbers are inflated. Dr. Deborah Birx stated on April 7, “If someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that,”[4] So a patient who dies of a heart attack c would be listed as a Covid-19 death if it was reasonably assumed the patient had the virus.
- Far more people have had the virus than the test numbers reflect, which also makes the death rate lower than once thought.[5]
- USNS Comfort is no longer needed in NYC and was only used for a small number of patients.
- At least two Army Field hospitals that were built have been taken down for lack of need.
With this information in mind, we need to examine the two paths of thought we see in our country – extending lockdowns until a measure of safety can be achieved or reopening life and economies with some social distancing measures. With either path you run into the question of the value of democracy and individual rights. How do we make the leap from viruses and vaccines to democracy?
In democracies and free markets people get something that no other system of government can offer: freedom of choice. A democratic government “derives its powers from the consent of the governed.” American democracy was such a radical idea because for the first time in human history every voice in society would get an equal vote. This meant that those in leadership weren’t the “elite” of humankind and that riches or birthright didn’t determine who could govern. It meant that education did not determine the worth of your voice. The Declaration of Independence boldly declared that every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not because the government bestows it upon them, but because it is given to them by their Creator. Although it took America years to get there, every person has the opportunity to freely choose the laws placed over them through representation.
The one tricky question in democracy has always what rights belong to the federal government, what rights belong to the state and what rights belong to the individual. Systems like communism cannot afford to give people liberties like the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion because their system requires compliance. Freedoms and compliances sometimes are at odds, especially when the governed have no voice in their representation.
So, then what is the role of the government for us as Americans? Is it to keep us safe? Is it to provide for our every need? It is to care for the poor? Is to heal the sick? I believe Abraham Lincoln said it best, “That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”
We can make decisions about our health. We can make decisions about how and where we worship. We can make decisions about how we express our opinions and how we treat others. We do not need the government to regulate these things. There are many things we normally do on our own that only come into question at times of crisis. Fear drives people to look to a higher power for protection and security, to assure them everything will be ok.
Thurgood Marshall said, “History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”[6]
So, what does this civics lesson have to do with Covid-19? That remains to be seen, but the potential exists for liberties to be taken and never returned if fear is allowed to dominate the conversation.
What if a state decided that in order to return to work, you had to receive a vaccine? Or that schools would not reopen until a vaccine was available? This is one example of ideas swirling around that would provide a feeling of safety for some, but an abuse of liberty for all. Defining “essential work” could be another in an extended lockdown. A hair stylist may not be listed an essential job, but if a single mom of three is dependent on it to feed her children, the hard lines of what is essential and not become more blurred.
Or what if every flu season a version of the last two months is replayed?
Democracies allow for freedom of choice and depend on the moral compass of the governed. There is no middle ground for democracy. Enacting restrictions so severe people are forced to comply out of fear is tyranny. The Civil War, The Great Depression, World War II and 9/11 each had instances of overstep by the government defended by urgency. Some were rescinded and some were not. We are at a pivotal point in our nation where we need to be aware of decisions being made and the long-term effects on our freedoms.
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[7]
The government cannot legislate morality and kindness. The government cannot make us think of our neighbor more than ourselves. Free people have to make that choice. If they are not governed by the law of God in their hearts, then the government often steps in to enforces laws. Given the sin nature of man, this is a natural consequence, but this is not how government works best because even at their best, leaders’ actions are never without motives and influence. This works well for you only if you agree with the motives and influence of the current leaders.
It is the responsibility of people and the church to step into these roles of caring for others, not the government’s. As a whole the church has done such a woeful job of this, that now a generation has been brought up to believe that the role of the government is far broader than it needs to be.
The answer is not more government regulation. The answer is that as a nation need to think of others more than ourselves. We need to do what is in our power to keep the disease from spreading, but not let our fear overpower common sense. We need to ask discerning questions and not just take information as it is presented. We need to hold our leaders accountable and ask questions when things seem to not add up. We need to help our neighbors instead of expecting the government to do it. We need to make our voices heard when federal government grabs for powers that should lie with the individual or the state, while at the same time obeying rules placed for our good that may just be a temporary discomfort.
This all takes wisdom and discernment in a time of media sensationalism, political division and self-serving ideologies. Our leaders need prayer and divine wisdom in the days ahead. Let’s pray for them and look for ways to serve those around us and put others before ourselves.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
[3] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-model-estimates-us-deaths-down
[4] https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/feds-classify-all-coronavirus-patient-deaths-as-covid-19-deaths/
[5] https://www.dailywire.com/news/l-a-county-study-antibody-testing-suggests-covid-19-infections-far-more-widespread-death-rate-much-lower-than-thought?fbclid=IwAR115jFPmkiSEJ3v9e9COWuS5fdP785VBcXCU4fZmzWGz4pEZIPDfUsyhwg
[6] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/490409-history-teaches-that-grave-threats-to-liberty-often-come-in
[7] https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/john-adams-quotes
