So here's the question no one seems to be addressing: What are we going to do next time?
Oh yes. There will be a next time. As I stated in my previous blog, if there's one thing we're certain of, it's that we've seen a new virus or strain of the flu that freaks out the CDC every year or two at least for the past few decades.
You see, everybody is on board with the idea that this is going to pass and we'll all get back to normal at some point. "We'll survive this!" seems to be everyone's mantra. But what happens when the next virus hits?
We've set the bar awfully high now, haven't we? Can we reasonably ignore 30,000 flu deaths anymore? I mean, in the past, when he CDC issued warnings, they were bilaterally ignored. But not now.
You can bet there will be something new coming down the pike in the next year or two. What will we do then? Will we again cancel school for months, and shut down all concerts and sports games, and ban all travel every time a new strain of the flu comes out, or the "horse-virus" or "Budweiser-virus" hits?
I think it will be reasonable to ask, "Why did everyone freak out so bad over the Coronavirus, which turned out to be such a dud, and yet nobody seems to care when my best friend dies from the flu?"
We've set a dangerous precedent here I don't see anybody considering. Not only have we set the bar that we should bring all life in the United States to a screeching halt every time some dude in the back woods of China gets a cold, but we've also now placed the burden on those of us who are relatively healthy to ensure those of us who aren't don't further compromise their shaky immune systems.
In a large number of people's way of thinking, we've shifted the responsibility to keep everyone healthy away from those who are actually sick to the shoulders of those who aren't. We've said, "Yeah, you're tough enough to muscle through, but because others might not be, you should quarantine yourself as well."
For years, I've heard parents and school officials alike say, "If your kids are sick, keep them home, so they don't get other people sick." That's pretty good advice that most everyone seemed to accept.
But not now. Yes, we're placing those who get the virus in quarantine, but at the same time punishing everyone else who isn't sick because they might carry the virus to someone who isn't healthy enough to fight it off. At least that's what the shamers on social media are saying. "Stop being a tool. You might be healthy, but others aren't and that's why we have to make you stay at home."
There's nobility in that, for sure, and I'm not saying it's completely wrong. I'm saying we've set the bar to that level now. Which would be fine, but most are not willing to do that in all other aspects of their everyday lives.
The general populace isn't willing to stop driving cars, even though tens of thousands of Americans die every year in car accidents. The government doesn't say, "We must clear all roads and interstates so as to stop people from crashing into each other."
We're not going to clear the roads for drunk drivers. We're not going to say, "Well, there's likely people out there driving drunk, so let's clear all the roads so they can't hurt anybody." It's absurd.
Heart disease and cancer are the top two killers in the US each year, knocking off roughly half a million people each -- every year. But aside from saying, "Hey you need to eat a few more vegetables, knock off the sweets, and exercise more," we're not really doing anything to prevent the deaths. We've reasonable said, "Look, people have a right to live their lives the way they want. If they want to live a lifestyle that kills them, that's up to them." The government hasn't stepped in and made everybody stop eating Ding Dongs and sign up for a gym membership.
I know there's always some who will say those are bad comparisons. But the principle is legit. After every tragedy or disaster, there are laws either proposed or enacted that essentially punish law-abiding citizens far worse than those who choose to commit crimes. Now we're doing it with healthcare. We're telling perfectly healthy people it is now their responsibility to make sure others don't get more sick.
We all have a moral obligation to look after those who are less fortunate. It's Scriptural, its heart-felt, and just plain right. We should be doing that anyway. But I think it's a slippery slope to start laying out blanket guidelines enforced by the government that in the end will only be enacted and followed when it's convenient, or worse, politically prudent.
Some might say, "You dolt! The measure are in place to ensure your safety as well." OK, but to what end? I'm being forced by the government to shut down my life -- which, to some, is no kind of life at all -- just because I might get sick?
It's true what they're saying. This is dangerously close to what socialism looks like. And it happened in a matter of weeks.
In the end, you can bet that there will be far more people plunged into financial ruin by all of this than will actually die from the virus. Right now, the more self-righteous among us simply do not care. To them, having someone's life completely ruined is a better alternative.
There's been one death in South Carolina from this virus so far. One. But the measures that are being put in place to prevent even one more have the potential to ruin the lives of thousands of others. Employees, retirees, and business owners alike. Is that worth it? You tell me.
Fear. Panic. Hysteria. Mania. Financial ruin. With very little data and mostly speculation and forecasting to back it all up. All in the hopes of preventing more deaths.
So what will we do next time?
No comments:
Post a Comment