After seeing some comments on a post I made about the virus yesterday, there were some replies I didn't get back to. I want to clarify and amplify my discomfort with recent mandates by governors.
 |
California Governor Newsome
|
To begin with, I know that the number of cases is on the rise. This was expected and predicted last spring. I remember clearly Dr. Fauci saying we were likely to see this. I do believe the accuracy of the numbers we've been told, i.e. cases, hospitalizations, ICU availability, and fatalities, are dubious at best. But that being the case, there is surely a surge in case numbers, regardless of how inflated they may be. And I do, to the extent I think is appropriate, respect the seriousness of this disease, especially as it threatens elderly and people with co-morbidities like my parents, etc. I'm not in denial about any of that, so throwing a chart showing me a sharp upward curve as a response to my objection, in this case to Minnesota's restriction to having visitors in a household who don't live there doesn't sway me much.
 |
Minnesota Governor Walz
|
Further, I am not even saying that government mandated restrictions: closures, numerical limits on get-togethers, or restrictions on out of household visitors, curfews, venue capacity limits, social distancing requirements, mask wearing, and hand washing aren't helpful.
 |
| Illinois Governor Pritzker |
I am saying that SOME of these restrictions and requirements, in coming in the form of government mandates, make me uncomfortable and leave me questioning if one size fits all mandates are in everyone's overall best interest. For example on the get-together restriction which set me off, here's perspective. Let's say that grandpa and grandma are quite elderly. They have some greatly shrunken and finite number of Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays left in their lives. In such a situation, where catching the virus at Christmas, for example, is not a certainty, but a possibility, and where the Christmas gathering can, with some effort, be done in a way to minimize that possibility, why would we deny them the family time when we all know good and well that any and every Christmas moving forward, including this one, might very well be their last?
 |
Here come the closures!
|
I also believe that mandated closure of businesses: salons, gyms, restaurants, bars, shops, etc., while presumably in the overall best interest of the health of the community at large, encumbers the community at large, in this case represented by the same government that is mandating the closure, to protect and compensate businesses and workers in the same breath that puts them out of work. Not that I am advocating such a closure, but I am saying if Governor so and so mandates a closure, those affected by it need to be protected financially.
 |
Detroit, April 2020
|
I do not deny the virus is a concern and warrants being addressed. But the solutions have adverse impacts, too. Financially individuals are hurt. Businesses which perhaps operated on the borderline of profitability are being and will continue to be lost forever. Teachers may be doing their best with remote learning, but kids ARE losing out academically, socially, in every way that being at school benefits kids. Elderly in nursing homes and shut-ins going without visitors are suffering horribly in being deprived of family contact. People with depression and other mental illnesses are suffering doubly in all this. Alcoholism and addiction has to be increasingly problematic, as are suicides.
So my objection is to "one size fits all" mandates, because one size doesn't fit all and we all know it. One size fits most? Maybe. One size fits some? Surely. One size fits none? No, I wouldn't say that at all. The bottom line is that I know some people can manage through this very well by following recommendations and guidelines. Other people are stupid, inconsiderate, and irresponsible. I don't know exactly where the line of demarcation should be in terms of the government mandating these things. But I do know I will continue to ask questions and to object when it seems a mandate might just as well serve the public if it was a recommendation or guideline and some personal responsibility were expected of us as opposed to punitive measures, the effectiveness of some which is dubious at best, for example mandating mask wearing out of doors in a park, or closing a place of business at 10:00, as if 9:59 p.m. is not so risky, but 10:01 p.m. is.
My last thought: I am responsible, considerate, and cognizant of how my own behavior might put me or people I love at risk, and I try to act accordingly. But neither am I in the Marines anymore, and your governor is not my commanding officer.
No comments:
Post a Comment