No public services. No church fellowship. No playgrounds. No libraries. No spending time with relatives. No sports. No graduation parties. No human contact. Isn’t that too many “No's” for “the land of the free”? We think it is time to open up. Give the control back to the people. Would opening up the stores force people to go shopping in them? No, but it would allow some businesses to start earning money again. Instead of semi-quarantining everyone, we could be focusing on keeping the elderly and other vulnerable populations safe, while the rest of us develop herd immunity. The number of children and healthy adults who have died from COVID-19 is extremely small.
We need scientists to discuss the illness openly, without political motives. We don’t need scientists to decide when we can make money to take care of our families. Yes, we have a giant safety net in the United States to cover for emergencies. However, printing money and borrowing trillions more won't make up for the lost productivity (that provides food and goods for the world). Is the world wide lockdown really preventing more people from dying? Looking at Sweden’s example, it appears that a wide spread lockdown may not make a significant difference in the death rate and may even set back progress towards herd immunity. If people were able to view the facts (without the fear mongering commentary), don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, people could decide the appropriate risk level for themselves? I still can’t figure out why having a bunch of people flowing through Wal-Mart is safer than a few people in a local shop downtown. It appears that many of the efforts are simply to try to make us feel safe. We don’t suggest a revolt (at least not yet); we simply suggest freedom of choice!
Nathaniel and Hannah Gilbert
Catch the latest in Opinion
Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!