The Tie Goes To Runner - COVID 19

Soapbox Alert – A Long Post

Having spent five formative years in Baltimore during the Orioles’ heyday (five appearances in the World Series in six years, winning four of them), I learned a lot about baseball at my Father’s knee. It thrilled me to share his love of the game, combined with having a winning home team. One of the rules he taught me was that “the tie goes to the runner” when both the ball and the runner hit the base at the same time. There had to be a rule about which of the two sides took priority, even if it appeared they both had hit the bag at the same time. It had to be determined that one team had priority over the other, and - importantly - in a consistent way, with a consistent rule, so that all games, played by all teams, where there was a tie at the base, had the same result: the tie went to the runner.

In today’s unnatural pandemic social climate, there are two opinions occurring at the same time, and they are destined to clash, to create the need for refereeing a winner and a loser. But unlike in baseball, this is no game, and the consequences of making the wrong “call” are larger – though, ironically, ultimately it IS about a decision of who is “safe.”

Putting aside for the moment my bewilderment over why so many people are still not taking the pandemic seriously, as evidenced by some politicians ignoring scientific information and warnings about the impact of opening the country again too soon, or at the least not meeting the minimal guidelines given by the current Administration as a metric to do so (no state as yet has hit the minimum requirements for reopening that the President’s Coronavirus Task Force established), I wanted to focus, instead, on the issue of those who are claiming their rights are being violated by adhering to stay-at-home orders.

To me, it’s so very simple. To the protesters: Your individual right to go out and potentially infect others, when you don’t know if you are infected or not, is not greater than my individual right to not have my family, my loved ones, and myself, put at risk for illness and/or death due to your recklessness and disregard for overall public health and the desire to get out of your house (which we would all like to do – you think you’re the only ones?) Period. You may have rights of movement (I still find this argument lacking in legal foundation in the current situation), but I have rights, too - not being infected by you and dying comes to mind - so to me THIS tie is a simple call and has a clear cut “winner” between the two opposing views: YOUR ADHERING TO STAY-AT-HOME ORDERS AND NOT PUTTING YOURSELF AND OTHERS AT RISK FOR ILLNESS AND/OR DYING WINS. I don't know, maybe you don’t care if you get sick or die, or maybe you don’t think it will happen to you.

We could ask the beloved and revered Richmond, Virginia, Bishop Gerald O. Glenn what he thinks about that, since he openly defied social distancing and vowed to continue to preach “unless I’m in jail or the hospital” – oh, wait. We can’t. Sadly, he passed away from COVID-19 just before Easter, after continuing to hold religious services against Virginia State guidelines to limit gatherings to ten people. His wife also has tested positive. Their daughter, Ms. Crawley, pled with the public on Facebook after losing her beloved Father, “It becomes very real to you. I just beg people to understand the severity and the seriousness of this, because people are saying it’s not just about us, it’s about everyone around us.”

So perhaps the focus of the discussion should not be on the INDIVIDUALS’ rights, but on the rights of overall PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. Wow, what a novel concept, right? I can’t help but wonder - could there have been any other time in history where such was the case? (Excuse the sarcasm). Perhaps I should say, instead, is there enough room in this post to list all of the times through our nation’s short history that the PUBLIC – that means the RIGHTS for our citizens as a WHOLE, and NOT each and every individual part – health and safety issues needed to be, and have been, the priority? The restrictions in World War II immediately leap to mind – can you imagine protests over being restricted over what foods you could buy (food rationing) or having to have blackout curtains in your home? Seriously?

To those who are protesting and/or supporting the protestors, let me ask you this: Do you go through security at the airport? Take off your shoes, your hat, your coat/sweater, your belt? Do you have your hand luggage inspected? Yes, but you didn’t always – I remember well walking to the gate to greet family and friends as they deplaned, and many of you probably do, too. But after 9/11, OUR WORLD CHANGED. Something we had never, as a society in America, happened before occurred – and that changed everything. It was a NOVEL situation that required a new approach and a new understanding. And so, because NO ONE wanted to be on a plane that could easily have had a bomb put on board and blown out of the sky, EVERYONE agreed that – hey, here’s an idea! Let’s CHECK EVERYONE TO SEE IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO PUT A BOMB ON BOARD, AND SCREW OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AT THE AIRPORT – the needs of all of us trumped the inconvenience of some of us. So, we all now take off our shoes, stand with our arms over our head, wait patiently/not so patiently as our personal belongings glide through “invasive” x-ray machines and – if flagged - have those same personal belongings spilled out onto a table for further examination in full public view, if we want to fly anywhere in the world. It was a GLOBAL response to a global “pandemic of terror.” Some airports are stricter than others, but the end result is, as a worldwide humanity, when confronted with the need to create a new norm for air travel, everyone did, because the situation had changed. That became “the rule” in the game of air travel – the tie went to the safety of the public over the individual rights of privacy and inconvenience.

The comparison is fair insofar as having a novel and threatening situation being the impetus for a change in societal norms. As to the current situation, I don’t know anyone who is excited or happy about the restrictions that are in place – I haven’t been home to Spain with my husband in three months! – but my bigger concern is that of the overall health of our nation. My inconvenience, my sadness about the distance from my husband, my home, my not having access to my home office, pales in comparison to the risk I might pose to others if I unknowingly transmitted this disease by traveling, putting aside that my hometown in Spain is still in full quarantine, (so I CAN’T go home) – and, I would note, with NO complaints or demonstrations by its citizenry.

Those unknowns are important. Think about the limited information that was available at the start of the pandemic: The illness did not infect children (it does). The illness only affects the lungs/respiratory system (it affects all organs, with a large spike in recent reported heart functions). Masks aren’t necessary to prevent transmission (wear a mask and gloves in public). Social distancing won’t really help (stay six feet apart when in public). It’s no worse than the flu (‘nuff said about that). It will go away when the weather warms up (it’s rampant in hot climates, too). There have been so many assumptions, based on the limited information at the time (putting aside the misinformation campaigns for this discussion), with only diligent inquiry and time providing an evolving history; a pattern of the behavior, risks, and therefore appropriate responses to the virus. That’s what makes it a “novel” virus! THIS IS ALL NEW – and equally new to EVERYONE.

New situations demand – not require, demand – new levels of response, and in this situation, common sense would seem to dictate a coordinated and agreed upon response that errs on the side of the living and the limiting of the spread of the VIRUS, not the limiting of what any one individual wants to do because he or she is unhappy about being told what to do by the government. COVID-19 restrictions are not intended to reduce civil liberties, but to reduce the spread of the pandemic, while nations all over the world simultaneously work to understand the best possible way to respond, to find the balance between the proliferation of the disease and the ability to function as a society.

No other western society has protested more over the stay-at-home restrictions than the US. I find that appalling. The nation that holds itself to be one of compassion and consideration, of patriotism, of pulling together in times of crisis, is the nation leading the free world in oppositional and – excuse me, but in my opinion – spoiled behavior, acting like a bunch of petulant children – “You can’t tell me what to do!” Well, I think public policy says governments can in this circumstance, and it is NOT a “slippery slope.” It’s a temporary move to protect the lives of the citizenry, and that IS the job of the state and federal leaders. Governmental leaders get to make that determination because the voting citizens gave them that power. And a true leader, leads – he/she does not let the tail wag the proverbial dog. He/she does not let uninformed people rally and prey on emotions to stir up the pot in order to get their way, instead of having more informed and scientifically-based decisions prevail.

The U.S. is a nation of 330 million people (as of the 2010 census). When a majority of those citizens have been tested; when infected people have been appropriately contact-traced; when the medical communities are in a position to adequately address those who are or become ill; when the information gathering about how this virus works, how we can protect the frontline workers, how to re-open businesses in a way that does not pose a threat to a second wave of infections – which essentially renders all that has been sacrificed so far, by so many, a WASTE – provides enough information that the virus is contained enough to not pose a resurgence of illness and death, then and only then do the scales tip. There would be no need for protests at that point, because everyone would equally be able to move forward, after being equally protected by equal rules applying to all.

At the end of the day, when there are opposing teams of public opinion, only one team can prevail: The one that minimizes the spread, the impact, and the illness and deaths from COVID-19. We should all be on the same team when it comes to that - the Team of Common Sense.

Thank you for your time. FYI, I’ll be posting the third round of pandemic statistics according to the Worldmeter tomorrow.

(Note: This post is focused on the clash of individual rights and public policy, so all comments not conspiracy-related are welcome. I'm not restricting opposing views. If someone can explain to me the protesters’ point of view, I’d be interested to hear it, because I personally have been unable to find any reason their arguments hold any merit in the current circumstance. But as I’ve asked before in other posts, the conspiracy theory field about the origins of this disease, whether it exists or not, etc., has been plowed, and I do not see the need to revisit those issues. Thanks in advance).