Carte Blanche: The COVID Backlash Against Freedom

UNSPLASH/Sean Benesh

It’s early October and the world is still suffering from the effects of the virus and the subsequent lockdowns that sought to slow its scourge. Recently, the global count of COVID-related deaths passed the million mark, a grim memorandum. All continue to patiently wait for a vaccine, hoping it could justify serious alleviation, or even absolute elimination, of social restrictions that have become all too common and damning. This pandemic, and the various state responses by states, will no doubt be studied for years on end as the international community seeks to discover which approaches actually provided the most success. 

So far we know a few key factors about the virus itself: risks of the disease increase significantly with age, the virus has a high-level of transmissibility, and some individuals have a higher likelihood of transmitting the virus than others. Of course, there are other more technical qualities that have been unearthed, but it seems that these have a much higher effect on policy.

There has been a schism in American politics between state-supported lockdowns and limited or relaxed re-openings, and currently, it is difficult to pick an outright ‘winner’ of the two. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) has been celebrated for his ‘flattening of the curve’ after having experienced, by far, the highest death toll in the country. While, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) has faced serious criticism for having opened up the Floridian economy with steep case counts and ever-increasing death tolls, despite having one of the more rigorous testing programs.

Truly, there is no established consensus as to handling the virus in America. One thing is for certain, state intervention has been the universal norm, to varying degrees, as a means of combating the virus. Well, almost universal, bar one country that has received hate and praise for its less restrictive approach: Sweden. Sweden has been championed by those staunchly opposed to the strict lockdowns, and it has been firmly denounced by others for the sizable national death toll. However, Sweden has been experiencing a relatively low case count compared to their European comrades, most notably the UK. 

The UK flirted briefly with re-opening, but a recent sharp uptick in cases has prompted Prime Minister Boris Johnson to threaten stringent restrictions and punishments for violations. Persons found to not be wearing masks or in groups of more than six people can expect to be fined over £200 ($260). Johnson has threatened to pursue much more punitive regulations if the virus’ spread cannot be stifled.

There is a sharp contrast between Sweden, a country that has not entered lockdown once, and the United Kingdom, which has experienced the longest lockdowns in Europe. In this period, it feels like there is a struggle between the protection of civil liberties and casting our rights to the state in return for our safety. While a lockdown similar to the UK might make the populace feel safer, it does not really promote a path forward. Asking people to hunker down until a vaccine can ensure a return to normal life is true blitz-mentality.

The UK’s plan seems willing to deprive individual liberties in favor of blanket restrictions, and it is hard to blame them considering the burden already placed on the NHS by the virus. In contrast, Sweden is now debating restrictions for the first time during the pandemic, where the government trusted its citizens to follow social distancing suggestions. Sweden has had some failures in terms of protecting the more vulnerable populace, and cases have recently been trending upward, but the state of their economy and lack of paternalistic tyranny is enviable.

Nevertheless, the Swedish death toll is a political weapon that can easily be wielded to promote fear and a willingness to hand over certain freedoms. While the UK has wielded its power like a blunt hammer, I think the rate of ‘success’ is not great enough to totally negate the value of individual liberties. 

While these two states provide an interesting policy foil, I think the most effective, yet most ominous, strategies have come from Asia, more specifically South Korea. The crucial lesson learned from Asian responses is that contact tracing is the most efficient and effective way of stymying the spread of the virus. However, the means by which this is achieved is worrisome. 

South Korea and Hong Kong have grown accustomed to the intrusion of government surveillance as a means of promoting the general welfare. Hong Kong has some of the most extensive data available on the virus and robust contact tracing infrastructure. Both have kept COVID case numbers extremely low, and have made the respective American numbers look macabrely comical. 

While there is speculation that the strain of the virus they encountered was different than found in the US, this type of surveillance structure has and will earn more admirers in the future. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that this data is taken, not given. While pollsters can claim everyone enjoys the safety of big brother’s sentinel-like watch, this is a policy of compulsion. 

The reason the US has been unable to employ a cohesive strategy, like South Korea, is because of the regulatory powers states wield. These powers are being used to prevent companies, such as Google and Apple, from implementing contact tracing programs. There will be naysayers and those who do not wish to engage in these programs, which just seems like the struggle of a free society. 

While it does not seem like an equitable fear to some, many would argue a global pandemic is no excuse for the state to monopolize power and disregard the rights of individuals. Beyond moral grandstanding, what will be the political ramifications of a higher death toll, open free state versus a much more contained virus due to a health-policy state?

The fiction of Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 could very well become a reality. Even worse, we will also witness the utility of such increased state power. Individual rights and civil liberties will soon be under greater scrutiny as the dust settles after this pandemic. Yet, that is what we must stay vigilant for; when fears can be soothed by inviting tyranny through the door we must consider the greater consequences.

A state or province, like China and Hong Kong, can promise so much more to their citizenry, but inversely, they can take so much more away. The great question of liberty that has always existed, and will persist always, has once again come to the fore: “how much of your freedom will you sacrifice for safety?”