Governor must balance rights to life and liberty

M
ost of the United States has been under some level of lockdown, quarantine, or social distancing orders for over six weeks now.  We have seen just about everyone sacrifice something, whether it be merely the ability to do what we want on a day-to-day basis or the more substantial sacrifices of those caring for our sick and at risk.  As this temporary distancing drags on, we are beginning to see the impacts of the decision to isolate.  On one hand, the isolation has been far more successful than I expected at reducing the number of infections and deaths in Wyoming.  The rallying cry of “flatten the curve” has been very successful so far.  On the other hand, however, the ongoing recommendations stay at home and limit our interactions with others have had negative effects on businesses and on many people’s mental and emotional wellbeing.  As the fatigue of isolation sets in, we are beginning to see calls to “reopen” and to remove restrictions.  Our government leaders are wrestling with the question of when, where, and how to respond to these calls, coupled with the data on the virus and its spread.
I do not envy those in charge of making these decisions.  They are faced with extremely difficult choices that may have massive impacts on our society: people may live or die based on these decisions, economic impacts may last far beyond the end of the pandemic, and new precedents are being set as to what is acceptable in a time of crisis.  The challenge lies in
\balancing the many different and legitimate factors pulling in opposing directions.  Concerns about impacts on businesses are legitimate, as are concerns about public health.  It is
appropriate for the government to
consider what the proper liberty interest is while also considering what is
necessary to protect the safety of
the population.  
The Declaration of Independence’s summarization of mankind’s unalienable rights comes to mind: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  A large part of what makes the question of what to do today so difficult is the tension between these concepts.  Our government has the obligation to protect the lives of its citizens.  It also has the obligation to protect the liberty of those citizens.  Almost all the major questions of our time deal with the intersection of these sometimes-competing
interests, and the government response to Covid-19 is no different.  No two people may agree on where the line is between the protection of public health and life and the protection of our liberty to act without government interference.  
So how should the government move forward?  We have already seen some limited changes to public health orders that ease restrictions on subsets of businesses.  At the same time, public services that involve mass gatherings – most significantly, schools - are still shut down for the foreseeable future.  This is probably wise, as the best thing the government can do right now is to act cautiously.  If we were to lift all restrictions and guidance prematurely, the last month and a half of isolation may have been for naught, and we may have to return to just as restrictive a time as before.  The worst thing we could do would be to rush back to the way things were without a fundamental change in the way the virus is spreading or is treated.  We have “flattened the curve,” but that is not the end of
the fight.  
At the same time, the government can make common-sense decisions to allow public access to areas that have a minimum of risk of exposure.  Parks and public spaces, golf courses, and outdoor activities do not carry with them a high risk of transmission of the virus but still allow the public to have some recreation and physical activity.  Wyoming’s government has made the correct decision not to close these to the public.  A harder decision is where to draw the line on businesses involving personal interaction.  Regardless of what ends up happening, we must be careful that what we do does not endanger the public.
Lastly, we as individuals also have responsibility to ourselves and to others.  We must use good judgment in how we interact and the risks that accompany increased exposure to other people.  Even if the government does not require it, we should all be careful about how we interact with others until we finally have this virus beat.  Lets all do what we can so that we can get through this as quickly as possible.