Globally, governments have enacted far-reaching lockdowns in the hope that we may stop the terrible toll the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused. The global 3.2 million death count is but one tragic measure of our collective suffering. After everything we have endured, the last thing we want to hear is that all we have fought for and sacrificed was in vain. Still, we have an obligation to at least listen to the significant body of thought dedicated to criticizing the lockdown model. Still, while many have challenged whether our public health measures have worked at all, too little has been asked about whether the moral costs have been worth it. We have become so consumed with whether we could impose lockdowns, we have neglected to question whether we should.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence — form the foundation of our country. Protecting life is rightfully our first concern, but we have done so at the expense of our quality of life. Under lockdowns, domestic violence has risen and drug overdose rates soar as people lose their support structures in isolation. Mental health has deteriorated for adults at the same time children strain under school closures. Civil rights are suspended in some corners of the world while other parts have millions of people set to enter extreme poverty and face starvation due to COVID-19 lockdowns nuking the world economy. And while some have presented the deterioration of the economy as wholly acceptable when there are human lives on the line, the reality is that there is a deep connection between the economy and quality of healthcare, life expectancy and overall human mortality.
We must also ask ourselves what we mean when we say that lockdowns “save lives.” Which lives? Death due to heart disease, cancer and other preventable illnesses have all increased on account of lockdowns forcing hospitals to focus on COVID above all else. Furthermore, urgent reports note that far more people are set to die from tuberculosis, malaria and other illnesses than from COVID-19. In our panic, the global emphasis on the latter has disrupted the fight against diseases that often disproportionately affect the poorest countries in the world. If we are to hold the safety of human lives as a justification for lockdowns, we have a responsibility to hold the proponents to the same standard by making them answerable for the aforementioned costs. We can no longer pretend like we can run away from the harm caused by lockdowns under the cloak of “that others may live”. In our imperfect world, trade-offs involving lives are an ugly but inevitable part of every policy decision. COVID-19 is not the only killer, and we must consider all factors when enacting public health measures.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights lists the right to liberty. Many will roll their eyes at this notion in the face of the pandemic that has taken so many millions of lives. But throughout history, we have always traded some measure of security for freedom. Instances where our fear caused us to abandon our civil liberties in favor of perceived security form dark chapters of our history. Fear justified the internment of Japanese Americans, the loss of our privacy following the Sept.11 attacks and the increase in discrimination against Muslim Americans. Lockdowns similarly infringe upon our civil liberties by forcefully dictating our behavior on the grounds of collective security. By holding the lives of those at risk as moral hostages, lockdowns violate one of the most fundamental aspects of the trust between human beings in a society. In this regard, U.Va. has been a model compared to other universities in its approach to the pandemic. By giving a choice to students and professors that did not feel safe or were at a higher risk to go online and let everyone else return to Grounds, they allowed all parties the opportunity to select their level of risk. National policy must similarly recognize that citizens — not bureaucrats — are fully capable of making their own decisions.
From as far back as 1979, Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek wrote “Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.” Flattening the curve to avoid overwhelming hospitals made sense in the beginning, when erring on the side of caution was meant to buy time for hospitals to increase capacity and scientists to collect data. But when “15 days to slow the spread” became the new normal, the response to COVID ceased to be proportionate and respectful of the basic human right to individual autonomy. While there is certainly a reason to fear COVID-19 and take it seriously, we must be ever vigilant that our sense of emergency does not trample over the rights of others.
With all that being said, the most compelling argument that I have ever read against lockdowns was a simple letter written by senior citizens, begging to be released from their nursing homes. Quite plainly, they expressed that they would rather chance death from COVID-19 than continue to deny their deep yearning to see their families again. My own grandfather died of COVID-19 recently, and my sorrow at reading this letter was compounded by the fact that I saw how he suffered in much the same way. His final year was spent in isolation, with loneliness and despair his only company. Forbidden from seeing his daughters or enjoying what were supposed to be the twilight years of his life, he was denied the ability to live before his death. Though old age obliges our elders to face the sobering reality of their imminent death sooner than the rest of us, those of us who are young are not so different. Mortality is an affliction we all bear.
Words like “selfish,” “irresponsible” and “ignorant” have been used to shame and guilt those who have rejected the notion of risk elimination in favor of risk mitigation. After all, happiness is what makes life more than just survival, and stories like that of my grandfather are why it’s heartbreaking when I see people dismiss these concerns as someone just wanting to party or get a haircut. Yes, there are risks to seeing people. But risk will exist in a post-pandemic world as well. If self-preservation were our only objective, we would never leave our homes. We don’t think to ban alcohol because of its considerable public health risks, nor would we dream of banning cars to eliminate accidents. If we wouldn’t dream of banning cars, why would we dream of forcefully sacrificing our present and our futures for the impossible goal of a zero-risk society?
Clearly, even if you don’t concur with the guidelines set forth by the University, you still ought to follow them as part of the agreement of coming on Grounds. But who among us is faultless, and when did we become tyrants to our friends and neighbors? Humans are social creatures, and we need to interact with our loved ones, laugh with our friends, and enjoy life in a meaningful way that cannot be measured quantitatively. While there may be zero-risk to cancelling graduations, birthdays, weddings and other life milestones — there is a cost. As morbid as it sounds, death comes for us all. It’s what we do in life that counts.
Apurva Shrestha is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
Views expressed are of the individual only and not those of the DoD or the Army. Columns represent the views of the authors alone and are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
