Balancing risk and reward: how far is too far

Question: Is it wrong or even heartless to challenge the claim that we have to suspend the Constitution and destroy the economy if it means saving one life?
 
N
o one wants to see a single person die, but I’m reminded that we all make trade-offs every single day, balancing risk and reward. Every time you get in your car you have the potential risk to injure/kill yourself or others, as 371,626 have already died this year from that cause. We don’t take away everyone’s car to save one life. Why? Because individuals and society benefit more from the use of our cars versus the cost of government forcing us to get rid of all cars to save one life. Does that mean we don’t care about life? No, it means we’ve determined there is more damage done to people’s lives by eliminating vehicles, versus the benefit they offer us.
In order to keep people safe from COVID-19 state governments have taken it upon themselves to suppress the economy and arbitrarily shut some businesses down. What’s the trade-off? A beleaguered economy and massive unemployment. Why is it that government has determined that it is better equipped to make decisions on behalf of people, than free men and free women who
constitutionally are entrusted with these great freedoms? That’s a power grab. How do we assess the cost/benefit of this government response? In 2002 a Yale researcher concluded that rising unemployment causes higher death rates. A separate estimate says that for every 1% rise in national unemployment, an estimated 40,000 people die. While an exact number is difficult to calculate, social scientists have studied and established the validity of this claim. These deaths come through increased stress, negative health effects and disease, substance abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, lack of food/nutrition, loss of housing, mental health issues and suicide.
How does this compare with damage done by COVID-19? As of this writing we’ve had about 489,280 US cases, and 18,000+ deaths. Compare this with 16,800,000 people unemployed and climbing (that’s millions--about a 6% rise). While unemployment deaths won’t come all at once, it’s worth noting that an estimated 240,000 will die based upon the premise above. Even if this figure is wrong by 90%, it’s still more than the COVID-19 deaths in the US. Already we’re seeing a rise in mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence, and massive increases in calls to crisis centers. Is the government’s solution doing more harm than the disease? It’s a
fair question.
This is by no mean an effort to trivialize or minimize the danger of COVID-19. Nor should our efforts to stop it be any less serious. It’s about perspective, and evaluating the effectiveness and ramifications of our current response. Are the economic problems government is creating the best way to combat the danger associated with COVID-19? If not, shouldn’t we consider alternatives and a course correction? Most politicians won’t even bring up the subject because they’re afraid of how the media or other people will spin it. “You don’t care about life!” some shout. We do ourselves, and our state, a disservice by not talking about and considering these things. Just as there are medical experts, there are also economic experts. Furthermore, politicians don’t have the privilege of violating people’s constitutional rights, even if that is what medical experts like Dr. Fauci or state health officers recommend. Policy makers have a responsibility to weigh all these considerations, not just the ones we hear inside an echo chamber. And when politicians don’t listen and begin to be tyrants, the people are obligated rise up and practice civil disobedience for the good of
the Constitution.