There is a very real possibility that coronavirus will remain a threat at the present level for a good long while, maybe even on the order of years. Let’s assume that’s in the cards, or likely enough that it should be planned for.
What restrictions on the public and private sectors do you think are the most important to keep up until a vaccine is made and distributed, no matter how many months or years or decades that takes? How are you willing to enforce them? (For example, who would enforce mask wearing laws, including on a face to face basis, and with what penalties? Would you advocate government offer anything to businesses, small or large, affected by continued enforcement of preferred policies?) What practical costs and consequences do you envision for keeping up restrictions indefinitely and how do you think they should be addressed? (This one could definitely be considered part of the enforcement question.)
There are many issues, some of which are obvious, that I’m trying to get to the heart of with this question. One is the whole emotionally charged debate between saving lives and considering costs. I’m hoping more specifics of what people envision might help bridge any gap that exists between the two sides.
Another is the issue of how to keep the things that work and the progress we make going in the face of uncertainty. We’ve already seen that relying on the good will of the public can only go so far, with some shining exceptions. On a larger level, I get the feeling that if, say, the NFL faced the prospect of having to cancel season after season after season, or parents faced the prospect of schools and day cares being closed year after year for some unknown stretch of time, some people, if they were in charge, would be tempted to just shrug and say, sorry, saving lives comes first. But that would mean powerful enemies would be made against your policies. Do you engage them or dismiss them? If the former, how? If the latter, do you believe that such opposition is ineffective and/or irrelevant? Why?
Hopefully I’ve gotten everything in my head out clearly. I think this aspect of the discussion is an important one to talk about (if you think otherwise, I’d like to hear why).
(I should note that residents of countries outside the U.S. are obviously free to respond, though obviously I have a keen interest in that country in particular. Still, given discussions on other threads, nations that are handling this well, and even those that are not, would be interesting too.)
I’d be perfectly happy to see mask-wearing, social-distancing enforced for years to come, with heavy fines for all who don’t comply. It is a minor inconvenience compared to the virus-fighting benefits that they provide.
I wouldn’t mind movie theaters being shut down indefinitely, bars and all indoors restaurant dining closed, churches required to go all outdoors or all online (no indoors services.) I am OK with the NBA, NFL, etc. continuing to play as long as very few fans are in attendance. I would like all airplanes and airports to be kept at a fraction of capacity and scrubbed/sanitized incessantly, and many stores or public buildings required to have UV virus-killing air filters or whatnot.
But I suspect that, compared to the average American, I’m much more on the draconian end of the spectrum with regards to what liberties I’m comfortable seeing sacrificed to fight this pandemic.
I’m not so sure you’re on the draconian end of the spectrum regarding what liberties you’re comfortable seeing sacrificed. I’m willing to sacrifice the same ones as you are - for a while. I can at least do a few more months. That’s where I think you’re on the end of the spectrum - the duration. I have no problem with the idea of requiring masks in public indefinitely. I wouldn’t have a problem with requiring companies to allow jobs that can be done remotely to be done remotely until the end of time.
But there comes a point ( and I’m not sure exactly where it is ) when the life we are making all these sacrifices to save is no longer worth living. Where kids haven’t gone to school in years and there are no parties or weddings or group vacations and grandchildren and grandparents only know each other through video calls , even if they live close by. Where the unemployment rate is sky-high because restaurants can’t stay in business with only outdoor dining, and casinos/bowling alleys/movie theaters/malls are closed permanently.
I’m holding out hope for a vaccine by early next year. I can imagine keeping up with the masks, social distancing, avoiding shared indoor spaces, etc. until then. The thought of having to do so for years with no clear end in sight is incredibly depressing. I don’t think I could do it.
Current attitudes won’t translate to a long term situation. Eventually it will come down to a steady state of death and morbidity that balances imposition on daily life. It isn’t the first time we have dealt with pestilence. But each pathogen brings different questions. TB, Leprosy, Bubonic Plague, Typhoid, and the list goes on. The impositions on daily life for any of these were extreme. Bubonic plague gave us the word quarantine.
So one might expect that some new social norms will evolve. They will probably vary quite a bit. Depends upon social pressure.
I think the conservative politicians in the US missed a trick. Declare laws mandating masks as un-American imposition of freedoms, and not wearing masks un-American dickish behaviour. Or at least words to that effect. Maybe social responsibility is no longer considered as pro-national, not being there I don’t know.
But the above outlines the basic problem. Mandatory behaviour with enforcement and penalties is never going to work out in the long term. Looking around the world you see huge differences in the level of legislated versus advisory behaviour. In the end what will matter is enough changes in behaviour in the right places to bring the death and morbidity to a level that by some metric is acceptable. What the heck that metric is is another question. It is going to vary from place to place, and time to time. Ongoing 100% excess deaths is not going to be palatable. But 10% probably is. How about 50%? 30%? What about morbidity? As the walking wounded pile up, will we see enough of a problem with long term morbidity come to the fore? If older people don’t die as much but many younger people end up spending 6, 8, 12 weeks off work, how much will that affect everyone’s outlook? (Not nearly as much I suspect. Deaths are a trifle permanent.)
As time goes on we will get better at treating people. We might actually manage to drop the fatality rate to a tenth. What then? It would then only be about as bad as the flu from a statistical point of view. That remains a serious possibility, and absent a vaccine I would suspect would be the final outcome. We have only had 6 months experience treating it. The weird cases that cause clotting related syndromes in younger people would be relegated to being an unfortunate hazard of life, but no more than that. No worse than many other annoying infections. For many, much less nasty than say chickenpox as an adult. Eventually such things get normalised into daily life.
Still, given discussions on other threads, nations that are handling this well, and even those that are not, would be interesting too.)