Morality of the Coronavirus Shutdown

[otjm]

But I keep feeling as though the shutdown, particularly in places like Illinois, is becoming communistic as they are “bullying” people who are not abiding by the rules.

Most people really have no concept as to what powers the State has in reference to emergencies such as this health crisis.

There may be some governors who have overstepped their boundaries but that is a matter for the court system (and possible the elections cycle) to determine - Michigan being one state which comes to mind.

As to bullying, it is easy for people whoi have no concept or training in law to say that the State has overstepped its boundaries; one is likely to find at the same time and with the same people that they exhibit a near complete lack of common sense.

There appear to be a larger number of people who have been infected and are asymptomatic, or who have such mild reactions they do not dientify as having caught the virus than scientists and cotors first assumed. That is not grounds for going out and passing the infection along to others; like it or not, social distancing and reducing public interaction is reducing the spread of the infection.

As a note, this is being done in just about every country in the world, including those which might have more personal freedom and those which have less. In short, it is about the only viable way to get control of a virus which replicates exponentially.

It is going to create a tremendous amount of economic chaos. and there are already appearing any number of “Monday Morning Quarterbacks” who are looking in hind sight - or no sight at all - and who know" that the government has been terribly wrong.

To which I would say - wake up and look at what happened in Italy (since we only have lies as to what happened in Wuhan) when the medical community was swamped with critical patients to the point where they could not even approach adequate treatment.

We now today have numbers as follows: worldwide (which most likely is less than compete coverage) there are 2,900,000 people who are known to have been infected, and 206,000 dead from it.

And that is not the total number of people infected, as many, many more have mild or no symptoms and are not reported. And so far, we do not know if they can be reinfected or not.

“Very hard on the economy” isn’t even close. We did not invite it; China hid the fact that the virus was loose and they were in crisis, and is still lying about matters and destroying evidence. We have at least 20,000,000 people unemployed - which is approaching the rate of the Great Depression in the 1920s-1930s.

206,000 dead (at least) with nearly every country in the world locking down and enduring economic repercussions. Does that answer your questions?

 

[otjm]

Don’t worry, the Fed is protecting investors

No, the Fed is not protecting investors, I happen to be one as I trade stocks, and the Fed is doing absolutely nothing about investors.

Nor should it; it has far, far larger fish to fry. The $1,200 that taxpayers received (with additions for families) is a drop in the bucket when we have some 20,000,000+ people out of work, often in states which are not equipped to provide unemployment checks because of the phenomenally overloaded systems.

 

[otjm]

The morality of the shutdown would then depend on if the government is still working with the best information that millions of people will die, vs they are overplaying their hand and are still mandating stay at home orders even as the threat has past.

Japan decided the threat was not past, but that it no longer was as serious a threat, so they opened up - and had a whip-snap result of the virus spreading exponentially again.

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

Philly Police Drag Man From Bus for Not Wearing a Face Mask ​

A viral video of the incident forced Philadelphia transit authorities to rescind a coronavirus-prompted policy mandating that customers wear masks.

This man boarded the bus and was not wearing a mask as requested by the bus company. The bus driver asked him to get off the bus but he refused to get off the bus. Police were called, he was not arrested nor charged. He was only removed from the bus.

Catholic News Agency

Priests arrested for public Mass celebrations during coronavirus shutdowns ​

Amid lockdowns responding to the coronavirus pandemic, at least three priests were arrested Sunday for celebrating Mass publicly, in alleged defiance of government orders banning religious gatherings during the pandemic.

It seems that there was some confusion in Uganda in the early days of lock down with the guidelines, as can be read below. This was not uncommon throughout the world when countries went into lock down. I wouldn’t call his arrest as bullying - rather a the Diocesan’s misunderstanding on the new Government guidelines. Perhaps clarity should have been sought by the diocesan in the day or two leading up to the lock down.

https://ugandaradionetwork.net/story/-church-seeks-clarity-on-prayer-guidelines-after-arrest-of-father-kiibi

I wear a mask when doing essential shopping which includes very good hand hygiene (thanks to a couple of local brewery’s making hand sanitizer) to prevent any transmission of the virus from/to others and myself. I feel it is morally right to do this and it is about caring for others - our neighbours. I would hate to be the one that spreads it to others due to being blasé.

Do you think that it is okay that our government is shutting down our churches?

Yes I feel governments around the world have been wise in protecting its citizens by temporarily stopping all community gatherings. When you look at the dashboard, many people young and old have died. Imagine how many would have died without temporarily stopping social gatherings . Please be mindful that there are many more, not yet recorded here: ArcGIS Dashboards Classic

Our Prime Minister Jacinda has some wise words:

Stay at home, break the chain and save lives!

 

[vz71]

What do y’all think?

I think that many in positions of power may find it difficult to release the reigns when whatever excuse there is has run out.

 

[Stephen_says]

But what are they gaining?

 

[vz71]

But what are they gaining?

You don’t think near dictatorial powers to be a reward of their own?

 

[Genesis315]

Public authority’s sole job is to advance and defend the common good. Here’s how the Church defines the common good:

CCC

1924 The common good comprises “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (GS 26 1).

1925 The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.

It is rarely possible to maximize all of these elements in any particular set of circumstances. The whole point of politics is the attempt to weigh and balance these–including what negatives should be tolerated–for the maximum good.

Clearly this pandemic and the varying approaches proposed to deal with it touch on all of those elements. I don’t see it therefore so much as a moral question as a political one. So long as all are taking the above elements into account, it is ok to have disagreements about which measures will maximize the good (none of us are omniscient after all).

That being said, it would be immoral to base one’s proposals or measures on immoral considerations rather than the elements above–say, if proposing opening up were based on a hatred of the physically weak or vulnerable and a desire to see them eliminated from society, or proposing extended lockdowns was intended as a means of reducing prosperity and instituting socialism, or doing either for the benefit of animals and plants over that of human beings, then it would be immoral.

 

[Stephen_says]

I’ve thought about this too. If you think you might have the virus and are going into public, I think that would be a sin, because you are endangering other people. If you are purposefully ignoring lawful orders to maintain social distance, that also might be sinful. If you are feeling healthy, are maintaining social distance, and do not purposefully disregard the laws and rules, I don’t think there is sin there.

 

[whatistrue]

You don’t think near dictatorial powers to be a reward of their own?

Perhaps the desire to gain such would be an incentive to some (I name no names), but such attempts tend to backfire in the US as a whole in the long run.

 

[Batman2.0]

Thank you all so much for your replies! Also, I would like to make it known that I don’t believe our government is necessarily communistic or that a shutdown this long is necessarily evil, I just need to hear some good opinions on this topic. As for all the people who have died due to the COVID-19, I truly feel bad for them and I will pray for them.

 

[Batman2.0]

Yes I feel governments around the world have been wise in protecting its citizens by temporarily stopping all community gatherings. When you look at the dashboard, many people young and old have died. Imagine how many would have died without temporarily stopping social gatherings . Please be mindful that there are many more, not yet recorded here:

Nice reply! My only problem with this is the fact that peoples’ souls may be dying due to confession and mass being highly restricted. After all, the soul is much more important than the body. Thanks for your reply!

 

[StudentMI]

Perhaps the desire to gain such would be an incentive to some (I name no names), but such attempts tend to backfire in the US as a whole in the long run.

I wouldn’t say that entirely. Look at the enormous growth of the government in the past 100 years. May not be dictatorial but it is certainly different from what we used to have.

 

[whatistrue]

Look at the enormous growth of the government in the past 100 years

A legitimate point. But I would note that the people who initiated those changes generally speaking did so for reasons other than personal power. They thought that a stronger government was better able to accomplish certain goals that they believed were worthy. Whether they were correct with respect to either the goal or the mechanism is a different discussion.

 

[PetraG]

The concern, I believe, is that (in the United States, at least,) these orders are a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution right to peaceably assemble.

When the Consitution was enacted, the States retained the police power to put in restrictions on movement and contact for the sake of public health. If the States were attempting to use this power where no public health threat existed to warrant it, then there is a case for violation of personal rights. (And it could come to that, where people could go to court over this, but it is not there now.)

Ultimately, the greatest recourse any government has to enforcing its will is violence.

This is the most extreme recourse, not the “greatest.” For instance, the police will not use the PIT manuever to pull you over unless you pose a very high threat if you continue driving as you are. They don’t shoot at you because they’re afraid you may get away with blowing a stop sign without a citation.

Generally speaking, people with little kids who are told by a uniformed officer to leave a playground will leave it.

Allowing this precedent to continue unchecked could be problematic in the event that it be weaponized in the future e.g. by declaring that Catholic assemblies are dangerous due to their beliefs.

Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.
Matt. 6: 34

We aren’t having Mass because the bishops recognize the danger to the people if they allow gatherings in defiance of the law. We’re being asked to be obedient and patient. Our pastors are as anxious to have the assemblies gather and the sacraments celebrated as we are!

 

[commenter]

The Church is normally expected to hold to a higher standard - prudence - than the minimum civil society standard, which is safety.

 

[PetraG]

I wouldn’t say that entirely. Look at the enormous growth of the government in the past 100 years. May not be dictatorial but it is certainly different from what we used to have.

Yet we are able to speak to a wider audience more often, able to deliver vastly more information at a vastly higher rate and able to assemble in greater numbers in places farther away from our homes than ever before, too. The people have also gained greater capacities. It is much harder for a government or a private person to commit a crime or even break a rule without leaving convicting forensic evidence, too.

 

[StudentMI]

None of that conflicts with the growth in federal power.

 

[PetraG]

None of that conflicts with the growth in federal power.

As you say, it is not dictatorial. It is different. I’m actually more concerned about how much Google and Xfinity and Verizon know and what information-gathering entities do with what they know than what the federal government is up to. The federal government seems to have more watchdogs watching it.

 

[StudentMI]

Yeah but factor into that the NSA and Patriot Act. The powers are there even if not fully utilized. That worries me personally. When a coercive power has the capability to utilize such strong measures I’m uneasy, myself.