Will Corona Virus Be the Beginning of the End of Our Rights?

Editor's note:  Feel free to subscribe to my YouTube channel and check out links to published works at the end of this article.



"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face - forever." George Orwell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain temporary security will deserve neither and lose both."  Benjamin Franklin

A question: If closing down any/most economic activity, social gathering (including religious services) and restricting people to home quarantine would save ten million American lives, if a disease were raging similar to the Spanish Flu, would it be justified? I believe most people would say yes.  Okay, what if it would same one million? Again, probably most people.  So how about a quarter-million? One hundred thousand? Fifty thousand? Well, how about ten thousand?

During this Corona virus outbreak we have seen Democrat governors grind the economy to a halt, as well as impose restrictions on personal behavior that are quite draconian. They, and those people who support such measures, often resort to playing on people's natural empathy to help preserve lives, shaming people who oppose such policy as uncaring, or willing to sacrifice people for economics.  Those who want to return to normalcy are accused of being heartless Machiavellians who would allow deaths in a "the ends justify the means" calculation of our most cherished views of what is most important of all - life itself.

However, in reference to the question above, hasn't society always imposed a Machiavellian approach to risk?  For instance, should we ban driving since 38 thousand people died in 2019 on our roads, not to mention the many more who received life-altering injuries?  Almost everyone social-shaming those protesting to re-open small businesses appear to be accepting of the casualties on our roads; I mean, how many have urged banning autos as an unnecessary act of convenience?  Last year the flu killed over 34 thousand people. That is a large number, but nobody was suggesting closing down the economy.  And 300 thousand people died last year from obesity-related conditions.  Did we close anything down due to that?

Overall, everyone is a Machiavellian in the sense that they weigh costs and benefits when making judgements on preservation of human life.  If a disease killed a thousand people a year nobody would really care, unless it was a member of their own family, a friend or a close associate.  Of course, if a TV news program featured the life of a victim and how it affected their family, you would feel bad for everyone involved, but nobody would say we should stop all our activities to avoid losing those thousand fellow human beings. The threshold has to involve more people, yet, is it moral to discount the victims? Maybe not, but we do it all the time - be it the psychopathic individuals who make our public policy, or the hyper-empathetic who would shed tears while watching the news story.  We all have what we call "acceptable casualty figures." Everyone does.

However, from the onset, it should be noted that Corona is far easier to transmit than the flu, and while it is not that deadly for the majority of Americans, if they catch it, there are subgroups that are very much at risk.  So yes, it is a nasty pathogen. On the other hand, research shows that as unemployment goes up, so too do social pathological outcomes including suicide, domestic abuse, crime, etc.  As anxiety and despair increase, when people plunge from whatever social strata they were in to poverty, we see people psychologically turn on themselves (situational depression, self-destructive behaviors, etc.) and also others.  An economic collapse might lead to potentially more deaths (ones that otherwise would not have occurred) than the Corona virus itself, especially if we factor in people being unable to get treatment for physical ailments that will develop into much more serious conditions as they were not treated early on.

So what to do? Sadly, we are often presented one of two options - do nothing, or go full lock down.  Yet there is a wiser approach.  For instance, Sweden decided that the best option was to encourage people to work from home if they could, high school and college students were to do distance learning, groups of 50 or more were banned and people were encouraged not to get close to other people in public (kinda the norm in Sweden anyway).  The idea was that this would "flatten the curve" so hospitals would not suddenly be inundated with patients.  Of course this is based on what many call "herd immunity" which proposes that most people who come in contact with Corona virus will not show symptoms, or if they do it will be akin to a mild flu, while the vulnerable people can have stronger safeguards to protect them.  This theory suggests that once at least half the population has been exposed then they will have antibodies and any future spread of the virus will be difficult, from the perspective of the virus that is.

Opponents to this strategy say that this means vulnerable people may be sacrificed in order to maintain the economy. Yet if the virus is here to stay, what then?  By next winter most Swedes may be immune to the virus (partially or fully).  Sure, nations that went full lock down may now claim fewer deaths, but what if the virus comes back and their population lacks antibodies?  Would those nations go on full lock down again?  And then what, when Act-3 comes?

The other major issue that needs to be addressed is how far we should the police be told to enforce policies to prevent this spread.  Again, this is not a pandemic akin to the Spanish Flu of 1918 in which people died by the scores.  However, it is easier to transmit that last-year's flu.  Yet, is collapsing an economy justified by the dangers it poses?  If the disease is here to stay then how do we pay for hospital care if we enter a Great Depression scenario? And do we trust state governors to get rid of the power they have wielded in recent months?  We see church services banned, small businesses shut down, and even curtailment of the right to travel and enjoy nature.  In some cities it is not permitted for a married couple to hold hands in a public park.  And now we see calls to employ apps to monitor if people are compliant with such edicts.  Are we about to enter an era of social credit systems?  Is the next stage drones hovering over public areas trying to detect people with higher fever? Already being tested.  And should the state really be given the right to come to your home and demand you be tested for Corona virus, and if you refuse you lose the right to leave your home?  I recall something about the Bill of Rights here.  Oh wait, its a pandemic...does that document count anymore?

Again, people will die of diseases and conditions as they have throughout history unless we develop some kind of nano technology in the future to reprogram our basic DNA.  Until then, we have to ask ourselves at what level do we suspend our rights to counter disease today.  Sadly, it seems too many people will follow whatever the sensationalist media says, and whatever a member of their party in power decides, before considering if it is warranted, or even what the long-term consequences will be.


My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3XJz3ZkzIW5sjpaaX3pp2Q

Like deep science fiction? The Destiny of Our Past:  https://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Our-Past-Michael-Cross-ebook/dp/B01MY4WASN

Psychological thriller, secret societies, how government really works - The Price of Power:  https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Conscience-Price-Michael-Cross-ebook/dp/B01MG5P7T6/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=freedom+from+conscience+the+price+of+power&qid=1579614825&s=digital-text&sr=1-1