MOBILE, Alabama — Is it too much to ask everyone to show some patience, moderation, humility, and empathy when it comes to handling the coronavirus?
While rejecting extremes, we should allow some leeway to those who, within a reasonable range, may err too much on either the “overprotection” side of things or the “it’s no big deal” side. We should recognize all of us are trying to muddle through a deadly and deeply unfamiliar situation, and a modest range of reactions is reasonable.
Viruses can produce continuing surprises. They can mutate rapidly, rendering everything we know about them obsolete. That’s why it is reasonable to reject the extremes of those who feign too much certainty but not reasonable to denounce those whose preferred policy responses are modestly more or less restrictive than we ourselves may favor.
So, yes, it is appropriate for those of a more libertarian outlook to reject governments giving widespread “shutdown” orders or other truly severe forms of state-imposed mandates. It is equally suitable for those who see hundreds of thousands of Americans dying to be furious at the “anything goes” crowd who refuse to recognize any communal responsibility at all.
With the delta variant now killing a thousand Americans per day, is it really that bad an imposition to require face coverings in some limited circumstances or “strongly urge” that people be vaccinated?
By the same token, should the government put its coercive power behind prohibitions of outdoor gatherings when available evidence suggests the virus isn’t easily transmissible in the open air? Should the government issue orders with only theoretical benefits when the trade-offs are quite tangible and real?
Indoor mask mandates are not fascism, but it is dangerously authoritarian for governments to arrest people for maskless outdoor picnics. Surely there’s an acceptable (if not entirely happy) medium whereby some people accept a bit of discomfort while others allow a realm for private choice amid uncertain and competing risks.
And surely there is room for people of different viewpoints within this broad middle ground to accept the concerns and fears of others without accusing them of bad faith or, worse, either fascism or murderous negligence.
It is still dead wrong to consider the contagion as a non-issue, even at this point. Think of it in the context of Afghanistan. Hundreds more Americans died from COVID-19 in the last three days than died in the entire 20 years of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. U.S. hospitalizations from the coronavirus are higher than those from fighting the Taliban. Congress has authorized nearly six times as much spending in only 16 months in response to the pandemic as the roughly trillion-dollar price tag for 20 years in south-central Asia.
Here in Alabama, there are more patients in need of intensive care statewide right now than there are available ICU beds. The city of Mobile has reached Critical Mass Level Zero, meaning emergency response vehicles literally have no place to take dangerously ill people because emergency rooms are over capacity. That’s bad news if you happen to get into a car crash or have a stroke this week.
This pandemic isn’t “over.” Not by a long shot. It is hardly a sign of creeping totalitarianism to explore various public policy options, some of them mildly coercive, for the sake of the quintessential government duty of maintaining public safety.
