For the past year and half (and counting), we have been told that the most important thing is the public health. We have seemed to have forgotten that being healthy should be a means to an end, not an end itself. We should exercise, eat well, and limit detrimental substances so we can live longer, better lives. And the point of living longer, better lives is not so we can have more time to exercise, but so that we can have more time to fulfill our purpose and be with the ones we love.
While getting and staying healthy is a worthwhile goal for individuals, families, and societies, there is a real danger when we sacrifice all else in the name of health. If we did, there would be no birthday cake at our kids’ birthday parties, no celebratory toasts with champagne or sparkling cider, and all holiday treats from New Years to Christmas would be prohibited.
I would hope we can see that these extreme measures are over the top. The problem is that when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans (along with most of the world) have not only adopted extreme measures, but some have even shamed those who disagree with mandatory lockdowns and vaccines, among other things. All this was done, of course, in the name of public health. So, what’s wrong with that? Here are a few problems with our current premium on public health:
Only some things actually count when it comes to public health.
It strikes me as odd that if public health is the most important thing that we have delayed cancer screenings, canceled essential but non-emergent surgeries like organ transplants, and now some people are too scared to go seek medical help for fear of contracting COVID-19. What is more, cities like San Francisco have set up safe places for junkies to shoot up with taxpayer money despite the horrific number of deaths from drug overdoses.
Of course, this is not to mention the skyrocketing number of suicides, mental health conditions, significant weight gain for many Americans, and cases of abuse that have occurred as a direct or indirect result of the lockdowns imposed on us in the name of public health. In fact, Dr. Scott Atlas (and others) actually argue that the lockdowns are responsible for more years of life lost than COVID-19.
So, if public health is the most important thing, it seems like all these measures done in the name of public health have done far more to undermine it than protect it. I’m not that kind of doctor, but it seems to me that instead of enacting broad, one-size-fits-all policies, it would have been better to issue recommendations based on individuals’ risk factors. These negative consequences that have undermined our well-being also tell me that I don’t think our health is all of our leaders’ priority. Either many of those in charge are widely incompetent or they know exactly what they’re doing and are willing to impose those sacrifices on us for another purpose.
Public health cannot be the government’s highest priority.
As much as I hope that everyone does their best to get and stay fit, I also recognize that I don’t have the right to tell other people how they should live. When I waited tables I encountered several women who told me all about the special weight loss diet they were on as they ordered baked potatoes with extra butter and sour cream for lunch. Based on what I know about nutrition, consuming large quantities of carbs and fat together is not good for losing weight, but it wasn’t my place to say anything about it.
And I think it’s not my place (or anyone’s place, really) to determine what someone else should eat or how they should work out because most of us woefully underqualified to do so. We also don’t understand how different bodies operate. And we rarely have all the data others use to make their health decisions, and it’s easy to ignore that there are costs and trade-offs to healthy choices, too. Eating well costs more, and even thoroughly tested medications can come with a litany of serious side effects.
It’s one thing if nosy neighbors or snobby servers tell us how we should live, but it’s a whole different ball game when the government starts to regulate our health decisions. Despite all of their reliance on experts, the government has a pretty poor track record with nutrition, among other things. The food pyramid it touted for decades is almost the inverse of what a healthy diet looks like. Not to mention that some public schools categorized pizza as a vegetable. And let’s not even get into the dismal failures of the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, or Prohibition, which was instituted for the “public welfare.”
But what is even more troubling is that if public health is the government’s highest priority, then that means other government functions will be subservient to that priority. So, if your individual rights like privacy, bodily autonomy, and free exercise of religion (going to religious services as well as abstaining from vaccines that violate your religious beliefs) get in the way of public health, those rights are on the chopping block. Never mind that our government was instituted to protect your rights from tyrannical rulers and citizens. Trading healthy bodies for oppressed souls and minds isn’t worth it.
Harm to others has become a creeping concept.
To be fair, there are times in which we do place certain limits on rights because of the unnecessary harm the exercise of those rights would inflict on others. The most famous example is even though we all have the right to free speech, we are not allowed to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre because of the chaos and imminent physical harm a human stampede would ensue. We’ve also heard that your right to swing your fist through the air ends where my face begins.
The potential for harm, however, is not automatic grounds for restricting rights, for the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is still protected under the 1st Amendment despite its offensive nature because the principle of free speech is necessary for a democratic republic. The Supreme Court also proclaimed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, one that we restrict with background checks, but one that has immense potential for harm if abused.
Needless to say, it’s tricky to determine what kind of harm can come from the exercise of rights, the amount of harm that should limit a right, and what the costs are of eliminating certain rights in the name of mitigating harm. And while I don’t have complete answers to all these questions, it seems to me that the intention to inflict harm, the certainty of harm, and the direct cause of harm should be considered when regulating the actions of others.
The argument that the unvaccinated or unmasked are harming everyone else is fairly weak on all of these dimensions of harm. First, scientists have known since May 2020 that most masks are pretty ineffective as a protective measure against COVID-19 transmission. Since then, several studies have supported these findings. Secondly, the vaccinated can also contract, spread, and die from COVID-19, so clearly vaccinations are not the miracle drugs they told us they are. Thirdly, I seriously doubt that most people would disregard quarantine orders after testing positive, nor would they purposely infect anyone else.
And if we want to go with playing the odds, we should ban cars and swimming pools that are far more likely to cause harm. That would mean that we couldn’t drive to the gym to swim laps… wait, that’s exercise, which is necessary for good public health.
Sign up to receive all the latest from Modest Proposals in your inbox!
Photo: "powdered-sugar raised donuts" by Salim Virji is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
https://search.creativecommons.org/photos/493de3f8-e46c-43bc-9711-4ddcc3e30cfe