Covid Response Rationality

Was the response of restrictions and mandates rational, in order to reduce risk of harm from Covid?

Normally I tend to cover more generalized concepts which can apply to a variety of aspects of life, but this specific topic seems pressingly relevant, so that it’s more distinguishably comprehensible. In my recent post I analyzed the more generalized concept related to this; Risk Free- Reduction, as a prelude. My basic conclusion was that, generally, for freedom of all to be reduced in order to reduce risk towards others who are able to protect themselves, it seems reasonable that the risk should be to a significant degree, and well proven. When applying that concept to Covid restrictions (or any restrictions), determining what is significant risk, and what is well proven, can be subjective (as I further philosophized in a post from about 2 yrs ago; Proven Fact), but as is common, a Best Guess (another post from about 2 yrs ago) is necessary for virtually everything we do in life. 

The best estimates for these factors related to Covid restrictions, would likely vary depending on the state which society is in. At the beginning of the outbreak of Covid, there was not a large quantity of proof of risk of harm for data on that specific disease, but with that lack of data, estimates of harm can rationally be based on the most similar factors which we did have data on. The most similar factors to Covid at the time, would likely be previous outbreaks of similar viruses. The data on those, seemed to be fairly sufficient proof to suggest a significantly high degree of risk of harm towards others. At that time, the risk seemed high enough to reasonably reduce freedom of all by implementing restrictions. 

As time went on, we gained data on the specific factor of Covid 19, so we could base more accurate estimates on that data, rather than similar factors. After implementing restrictions of freedom for the understandable risk, it became obvious that the virus was inevitably going to continue to spread, and that the implemented restrictions were not effective to stop the virus, but perhaps to slow it down. This is where it seems rational that reductions of freedom become questionable, considering any risk of harm towards others, was based on those others choosing to take the risk themselves, at least in societies of the world where there are sufficient basic resources. Virtually anyone had the freedom to protect themselves based on the data we had, since most people could isolate either on their own, or stay within a certain group of people, and or use significant protective equipment. All these options could reduce risk to nearly zero. 

Since we gained specific data on factors causing individuals to be at much higher risk, there was sufficient proof for individuals to estimate their own risk, based on affecting factors (preconditioned vulnerabilities to the virus). Vulnerable individuals had the option to protect themselves, and community resources (such as tax money) could have gone toward supporting them and helping to protect them. Since this was an obvious viable option, the restriction of freedom on everyone, no longer seemed reasonable to reduce risk of harm towards others. It was evident that restrictions on everyone were not effective for protection, so the reduction of freedom on all was worse than pointless, but only increasing harm to mental health and reduced resources on more people. 

We could have allowed freedom of choice, to allow those who decide the risk of Covid is significantly low for them based on preconditions (age and health) to continue resource production. With additional resources (compared to restricting everyone), more aid could be put toward more effectively protecting those who choose to protect themselves. Besides funding for those who are vulnerable and unable to work due to risk, methods of distributing resources to them without risk of spreading the virus could have been further developed and implemented (such as provided sanitized delivery of goods, and more effective mask protection). This would have no doubt allowed for greater protection of those who are vulnerable, as well as allowed freedom for all and stopped the harm done from restrictions forced on all. 

So it seems it could have been arguably reasonable to reduce freedom for all near the beginning stages of Covid, when there was little data and potentially high risk. But soon after it became evident that the virus could not be eradicated, much more effective measures could have likely been taken to simultaneously better protect the vulnerable to Covid, as well as the rest of society from the significant amount of short and long -term harm caused by restrictions of freedom. Perhaps the continued force of harm on society perpetuated by the government, was followed out of fear which often comes with a lack of distinguishing relevant causes and effects of changing variables. Hopefully this, among many things, has been learned throughout.

What’s Left after a Virus Variable?

What seems to be the result so far for society and politics after 2 years of controversial policy regarding the new variable that was introduced to the world?

For the last 2 years there has been policy implemented which has seemed to test political ideology. With a new variable spreading across the world in the form of a virus, the question and practice was pushed to make policies regarding safety of this new variable. This seemed to test liberal ideology of at least civil liberties and free enterprise. With a new variable including unknown effects of potential harm, it likely seemed reasonable to restrict some civil liberties in order to reduce a potentially significant risk of harm (short and long -term). But as time went on, it quickly seemed evident that restricting liberties was not effective. So why did restricting liberties and free-market continue? 

Perhaps the reason has to do with the more-so “Left” idealism. Regarding Left-wing as; concern for disadvantaged groups of people, it seems logical that throughout society learning more about the effects of the virus proving to be more risky towards certain demographics, this likely became the focused concern. As may often happen with other occurrences of excessive focus on 1 aspect of compassion for a group of people, all other short and long -term negative effects involved, tend to be unconsidered. In this case, perhaps all focus was narrowed down to “protecting” those who are vulnerable to the virus. This is understandable as the most direct and attention-grabbing negative effects of the new virus were deaths of the vulnerable. 

The problem comes from the lack of consideration for negative effects caused by policies put into place with the intention of protection, even as more data and evidence became available. The generalized negative effect by the policies could be regarded as reduction of civil liberties. A common argument for people with left-wing ideology, might be that it's worth the restrictions, in order to protect the vulnerable. But it seems likely that the over-focusing causes disregarding of relevant contradicting details. Beyond the generalized concept of individual liberties being restricted (including short and long -term), details that seem to be ignored or immediately dismissed actually contradict the intention of protection. Contradicting concepts that are disregarded, could be; 

1) Alternative methods of protection for individuals

2) Negative effects of mainstream protection methods. 

1) More specific examples of alternative methods of protection against harm from the virus could include; immunity from previous infection, vitamin D, overall physical health (exercise and eating healthy), and medicine other than vaccines. By disregarding these alternative methods of protection, it contradicts the intention of protection, since many more people could be protected using these methods, and they could be incorporated even with the mainstream protection method to much better protect those who are vulnerable. 

2) Negative effects of mainstream protection methods could include; degradation of mental and physical health from forced isolation and market reduction, as well as negative side effects from mainstream medical procedures. By disregarding these effects, it quite obviously contradicts the intention of protection, since many are harmed from these effects, rather than protected. 

When alternative methods and negative effects of practiced methods are ignored because of over-focus on 1 aspect, the results are likely to be much less effective than they could be, or even counter-productive to the intention. Perhaps shallow idealism that has a narrow perspective of few factors and generalizes concepts, disregarding counter details, should be regarded with significant caution. After this new virus variable, perhaps what’s Left, is at least that 1 lesson to be learned.