It is immoral to stay in lockdown to combat coronavirus (CV). Put another way, maintaining significant burdens on the US economy is morally unsupportable given the data that we now have on the mortality rate and transmission of the novel coronavirus. I’ll make this case here from a Christian worldview, and then I’ll offer some options for how to respond if you believe my case is valid.
Here’s the case:
– It is immoral for government to harm one person to help another, except in cases where the harm to the one is an unavoidable consequence of lawfully achieving a clearly greater public good.
– Lockdown orders harm many and no longer achieve a clearly greater public good. – Therefore, it is immoral to maintain or continue to follow lockdown policies.
Now here’s the support for the above case:
1) Government lockdown orders are creating significant public harm
Right now, millions of individuals and their families are suffering real, and in some cases long-term, harm by being forced to not engage in commerce. This harm is individually and collectively quantifiable in dollars. Additionally there is a very real cost in psychological and emotional health for individuals and families that have lost their income.
The Federal Government is currently adding trillions of dollars of debt to an already existing multi-trillion dollar debt. Assuming our economy does not collapse completely due to excessive debt, the CV-induced debt will have to be paid for by future generations. Congress has passed over $2.5 trillion in stimulus funding, which amounts to a debt of around $17,000 for each of the roughly 145 million taxpayers in America. So in effect, by locking down, we have put a tax on each taxpaying citizen of $17,000 (to be paid at a future date).
David Beasley, Executive Director of the UN’s World Food Program, has shared estimates that up to 130,000,000 people globally may “be pushed to the brink of starvation” due to the economic downturn of CV and the world’s response to it. That was not a typo: 130 MILLION globally. Even if we cautiously look at this and assume Mr Beasley’s estimate is off by a factor of ten, continued lockdown response is contributing to starvation for at least 13 million human beings.
2) Lockdowns are NOT achieving a clearly greater public good.
Recent antibody testing in New York indicates that as many as 2.7 million people have been infected with CV, resulting in approximately 18,000 deaths. That gives the virus a mortality rate of about 0.7% As a comparison, influenza kills about 0.1-0.7% according to the CDC. Note that I am not saying that CV is equivalent to flu – it is clearly worse, but I am offering a comparative number to help evaluate whether a widespread lockdown achieves a “clearly greater public good”. As an additional comparison, consider that since approximately March 1, about 55,000 Americans have died of CV (or CV related illness) while in the same period statistically approximately 92,000 Americans have died of cancer.
Epidemiologists have been estimating 20-30% infection rates in models for CV. Using the higher assumption and a 0.7% case fatality rate, worst case the United States will see approximately 693,000 deaths due to CV. This is only a little higher than the average number of US deaths due to heart disease each year. Added to this numerical consideration: CV probably will not “die” due to lockdown—it’s spread will just slow. So it is entirely possible that extended lockdowns will not substantially eliminate CV deaths…deaths will just happen over a longer period of time (which means we’ll have lots of deaths AND lots of suffering due to economic lockdowns).
In my home state of Utah, there have been 41 COVID-19 deaths. Considering CV has been a factor for about two months, that is LESS THAN 1/3 of the normal 2-month fatality rate for normal chronic lower respiratory disease (based on 2017 CDC stats). I think it’s important to emphasize here that every death is tragic and that this argument is not based on a claim that “it doesn’t matter if some die”. This argument is based on the reality that even as every death is tragic, so every lost job, closed business, massive indebtedness, and starving child is also tragic. Our situation is a zero-sum game: Either some people die due to CV or millions upon millions suffer globally due to the effects of extended lockdowns.
3) Lockdowns force one person to pay, willingly or not, for the benefit of another.
It is noble to sacrifice oneself or one’s livelihood for the life of another, but it is ignoble (and unjust) to demand that one person sacrifice his livelihood for another. At its most basic level, lockdowns tell a businessperson, “You must sacrifice your business so that someone else might live.” (For a more robust discussion of the trade-off between lockdowns and lives-saved, please read my last blog post here.) In some cases of extreme disparity or direct causation, we might say that this is justified. For example, we might tell the owner of a chemical plant that he must shut down after it is discovered that safety issues at his plant might kill 10,000 neighboring people. However, suppose a truck delivering his chemicals in a nearby state was struck by another motorist who died due to the ensuing chemical exposure. We would rightly say, “That is some of the risk of life that we can regrettably not avoid”, and only a very unwise person would claim that the chemical plant should close due to the motor-vehicle accident. In the same way, CV is a natural disaster (akin to earthquakes and tornadoes) that has struck, and it is immoral (and in some ways hubris) to think either that we can stop the disaster or that we should make other innocents pay to do so.
4) From a Christian worldview, death is not an ultimate evil.
As Christians, we believe that death has been conquered and that souls are eternal (1 Cor 15:54-55). While not minimizing the pain of losing loved ones or the fear of confronting the actual process of death itself, we do not view death as a terrible thing. It is a natural (though regrettable and hard) part of life, and one that will impact each and every one of us. To hold to our own life at the expense of another’s well-being is a direct refutation of the golden rule.
Similarly as Christians, we realize that God is ultimately in control of our days (Job 14:5). We know that it is God’s role to determine who lives, who dies, and how many days we are given on this earth. To frantically attempt to prolong life at all cost or to place ourselves in positions where we attempt to mete out life at the expense of others is to usurp God’s role in many respects. It is important, I think, to acknowledge that the case I present here effectively argues to allow more CV deaths. That is regrettable. But again, we must consider alternatives — deaths/suffering due to CV or deaths/suffering due to economic collapse – and not make decisions in a fantasy-world where we imagine we can both stop the spread of CV and avoid economic-based suffering.
RESPONSES:
Based on the initial data we had regarding CV and the 4-6% case fatality rates that were reported in China and Italy, temporary lockdowns actually made sense at the start of our response. I believe they were right and morally defensible. In fact, they gave critical time for our medical infrastructure to prepare and react. But as we have moved past a “temporary” implementation and as our knowledge of the true nature of CV has advanced, that moral defensibility of lockdown strategies has disappeared. What made sense in the beginning no longer does. How then, should we respond?
- We should advocate publicly and loudly, for an end to lockdown responses.
- If in positions to influence public policy, we should do so.
- If our government authorities refuse to respond to our influence, we should strongly consider direct civil disobedience. This is not a refutation of the Bible’s admonition to respect our authorities (Rom 13:1-7). It is rather a deep and heartfelt concern for the real suffering of our neighbors (locally and globally) who will suffer immense harm if we allow this approach to continue. For the sake of peace and the well-being of millions, let us hope and faithfully pray that our civic leaders see the sense in repealing lockdown orders.