Assessment of fates concerning the handling of COVID-19 (Updated)

 White Paper: Assessment of fates concerning the handling of COVID-19, Harvard study, with ‘coexistence’ analysis  (United States)

Understanding the origins of COVID-19 and how we approach it is a major responsibility. 

This presentation (reference link below) is an assessment with analysis of how we, as a country and collective, can approach the next few months in the handling of COVID-19. It’s imperative to consider these approaches, not just as a response to our immediate circumstances, but their long term effects.

As an American citizen with a master degree in conflict resolution, I present my analysis with a “do no harm” framework based on coexistence research methods, theory and practice. Thus, I advocate that we, as American citizens, understand the critical risks of the’three fates,’ and how we can protect our American way of life and our citizens without competition, but through collaborative efforts that require patience, understanding, and flexibility.

The approach we take must never undermine the United States Constitution. We must never fall into extremities or become victims of our overt trust in draconian measures instituted in fear.

We shall become better aware of our nation’s needs while proclaiming our forefathers vision for our country. We must create a future we want to live in; one where we feel confident raising our children in; one where we build a prosperous future for generations to come; one in which “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and the Constitution is at the root of our policy decisions.

This is important to understand because our American values, culture, traditions are being threatened in the name of public health. As AG William Bar said, ‘a National emergency does not suspend our Constitution.’

It has been five months since the assessment was originally written and published.

Now, it is time to reevaluate the approaches and the direction of our country.

To summarize, Harvard (2020) discusses three different approaches for handling COVID-19, an illness with .04% death rate. The approaches are as follows:

1)  "Freeze in Place" : implementation of strict surveillance and lockdowns until a vaccine is produced. A certificate of immunity, according to Bill Gates, should be the new requirement for participating in society. 

Analytical Commentary, March 2020: I am concerned that this approach may lead to super-surveillance, authoritarianism, civil unrest, discrimination, and even persecution unless new policies address these issues now or are reinforced. Other possibilities include the risk of a gross income gap (trillionaires vs impoverished, removing the middle class), unless wealth is distributed amongst the populations, especially any wealth and profits that accumulate as a result of a mandated vaccine.

Freeze in Place, I also argue, may lead to a rise in mental illness, suicides, social distance policing, and economic collapse that can potentially lead to more deaths than the virus itself and more harm than good.

Thus, we must look at philanthrocapitalists and their partnership with China and attempt to understand how this extreme form of capitalism and communism may be closely related, since Bill Gates and the organizations he sponsors advocate for Freeze in Place, while China has put it into practice by implementing strict lockdowns and surveillance. 

Analytical Commentary, August 2020: In retrospect, the reactionary response of implementing global shutdowns without sufficient data was more hazardous in many ways than COVID-19. The long-term effects of medical neglect during the lockdowns, food shortages, increase in suicides and abuse, devastations caused by shutting down the economy, and new policies, I argue, outweigh the risks presented by this specific pathogen. To act in this manner is to embrace China’s illiberalism and strict authoritarian control. U.S. citizens should be wary of any such practices. In fact, it is important to advocate against any measures that infringe upon civil liberties in order to protect our free nation from interference that results in permanent impediments. 

2) Harvard argues that the best approach is "Mobilize and Transition."

 "The objective is not merely to secure health but instead to protect the economy, society, liberty, justice, and health against the COVID-19 threat simultaneously."

Harvard describes it as “fate-controlled,” with a “sense of shared fate,” and “potential for positive impact on social cohesion.” This approach shares aspects from the other two approaches, but as an "up and down"/ "open-close" approach, where we can see levels of social distancing and lockdowns continue without endangering other aspects of our lives. 

Analytical Commentary, March 2020: I argue that this approach is a slippery slope that requires people to work on self-governance while we shift our focus on protecting our civil liberties and freedoms as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. 

As of today, 16 million Americans have filed for unemployment. It is therefore imperative that the nation consider the fruits of egalitarian concepts, which can model society in a time of crisis.

I argue that President Trump, in keeping a checked and balanced approach in regards to our civil liberties and allowing states to make their own calls regarding their economies, might be an example of this middle approach.

Analytical Commentary, August 2020: What the United States has been battling, is a top-down approach, by which BMGF instructs the WHO, NIH, CDC, etc, and its media channels of how to proceed (lockdowns, masks, etc). This, however, is counterproductive to a democracy and undermines the U.S. Constitution. By listening to the suggestions made by the health institutions, President Donald Trump then communicates these to the citizens. The key word here is “suggestions;” in other words, it is optional and up to The People to decide on how to proceed. While some Republican governors followed the President’s Constitutional lead, others did not, and made lockdowns and masks mandatory regardless of malpractice. To make matters worse, some Mayors acted stricter than the governor’s which is a direct abuse of power. 

Moreover, because it has become increasingly apparent that lockdowns are truly a “takedown” of the U.S., the President made it clear that the economy will not shut down; businesses and schools must resume. This is pragmatic advice given the situation, but had the virus been deadly, his stance would have certainly been more aligned with the Mobilize and Transition Approach. If, however, COVID-19’s risks somehow increase or a different virus emerges, I argue that it should be up to the people whether or not they choose to take the risk, since it has been established that “lockdowns” are unconstitutional. The bottom-line is that “Mobilize and Transition” is only plausible by allowing its people to self-govern without suffering shame or reprisal. Furthermore, any and all policies drafted should be based on the U.S. Constitution moving forward.

3) "Surrender" : (not included in exhibit A below) is an approach that argues that the psychological and economic downfall of society caused by indefinite closures and lockdowns, social distancing, and abrupt long-term change would cause a significant increase of death by other means (suicide/mental health, impoverishment/economic, and possibility other scenarios not looked at), particularly by the "Freeze in Place" approach or some deviation of it "Mobilize and Transition," and therefore, we must instead prevent these causes of death by proceeding as ‘normal,’ / ‘business as usual.’

Analytical Commentary, March 2020: Harvard did not provide a sensible argument for this approach. Their criticism appears to be based on virtue-signaling, by which the opposition to lockdowns is seen as some unthinkable, “unconscionable act.’ It is stated that “Surrender” could surmount up to two million American deaths (although these figures continue to be proven to be less) in exchange for keeping our freedoms, civil liberties, and togetherness. It advocates little to no change or effort in protecting citizens from any real viral threat. This approach is currently being practiced by Sweden who is said to have half the deaths as compared to Switzerland, both of which have a similar population number (roughly 8 million).

Analytical Commentary, August 2020: Since March, Sweden has been shamed, slandered, and harshly criticized by American journalism for daring to not participate in any lockdowns. Sweden’s death rates, however, have continued to decrease over time, proving that herd immunity is in fact, a more conscionable approach than “freeze in place,” which is now resulting in great food shortages worldwide and is also politically aligned with the Chinese Communist Party. Sweden, taking the opportunity to self-govern, has barely been phased by the lockdowns after-effects.

Conclusion:

To fully understand the issue at hand, we must continue to ask ‘who benefits?’ 

I continue to perceive the virus as a phenomenon that has given us the opportunity to reflect, monitor, and evaluate for continuous improvement. 

With bi-partisan cooperation and a unified vision of the future, the United States would currently be in a much different position today; one where we can agree that we all matter, things should be decided on a case-by-case basis and not a “blanket- one-size-fits-all” solution, and that our Constitution should never be compromised.

The top-down “freeze in place” approach, however, has further divided our country by embracing dirty politics and the illiberalism of communist dictators.

Closures versus Open Quarantine (Case study in process)

I argue that President Trump wished to resume the economy early because as a business man, he understands the intrinsic value people find when they are ‘active members of society.’ As seen in Sweden, I argue that President Trump has attempted to keep people ‘healthy’ through a sense of ‘normalcy.’

Fredrik Erixon, the director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels, wrote in The Spectator (U.K.) stated, “The theory of lockdown, after all, is pretty niche, deeply illiberal — and, until now, untested. It’s not Sweden that’s conducting a mass experiment. It’s everyone else.” Furthermore, when Sweden’s case is compared to the situation of Switzerland, “a similar small European country, which has 8.5 million people. Switzerland is practicing strict social isolation. Yet Switzerland reports 715 cumulative Wuhan-virus deaths as of today, for a death rate nearly double the number in Sweden. What about Norway, another Nordic country that shares a 1,000-mile open border with Sweden, with a language and culture very similar to Sweden’s? Norway (population 5.4 million) has fewer reported COVID-19 deaths (71) than Sweden but a substantially higher rate of coronavirus ICU admissions.” It is interesting to note that despite these numbers, the National Review opposes Sweden’s approach of herding immunity and advocates for strict lockdown, while posing a very valuable recommendation, “It is possible that the fastest and safest way to “flatten the curve” is to allow young people to mix normally while requiring only the frail and sick to remain isolated.”

 In the end, America adopted more of the “surrender” approach in Republican-led areas, and a strict “freeze in place” approach in Democrat-led areas. Many Democrat led areas which experienced strict lockdowns are in ruins due to civil unrest which may be a direct correlation to the top-down/Freeze in Place approach. While these Individuals burn down and destroy their cities, Americans strive to return to “normal” rejecting any notion of a “new normal” that appears to rob us of our humanity— closeness. Between the two, however, are individuals who, while taking COVID-19 with a grain of salt, have learned valuable lessons from the experience; namely—  the price of freedom.

Reference:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gf21eYeNWwrR9OO5nzxn1jlv-RTmHkt0/view?usp=drivesdk