A Pro-Freedom Approach to Infectious Disease

Table of Contents
I. WE MUST DEMAND BETTER FROM GOVERNMENT.
Our response to SARS-CoV-2 was un-American.
The alternative to coercive, statewide lockdowns was not two million dead.
A truly American response requires new laws.
II. THE LAW SHOULD FOCUS GOVERNMENT ON STOPPING THE THREAT POSED BY CARRIERS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE.
We need to legally specify a threshold for when infectious diseases qualify as active threats.
We need to legally delimit appropriate coercive interventions.
Proper laws would focus government on one task: to test, isolate and track carriers of infectious disease.
III. IN PRACTICE, PROPER LAWS WOULD HAVE ENSURED GOVERNMENT WAS PREPARED TO TEST AND ISOLATE CARRIERS OF SARS-CoV-2.
With better laws we would have had Taiwan’s level of readiness.
With better laws we would have had South Korea’s widespread, strategic ability to test.
IV. WHEN GOVERNMENT IS UNABLE TO ISOLATE MOST CARRIERS OF AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE, THE LAW MUST LEAVE US FREE TO ACT.
If government is unable to isolate most of the infected, the law should grant it few additional powers.
An improper public health goal led to coercive statewide lockdowns.
The proper public health goal is for government to protect our right to the pursuit of health.
This means government’s public health goal is not to coercively “flatten the curve.”
But during a pandemic, government must be transparent and explain how government-controlled healthcare will be rationed.
The law should prohibit statewide lockdowns and require governmental transparency.
V. IN PRACTICE, IF GOVERNMENT HAD NOT POSSESSED THE POWER OF STATEWIDE LOCKDOWNS, THE RESPONSE TO THE UNCONTAINED SPREAD OF SARS-CoV-2 WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR BETTER.
Governmental action would have been more strategic, targeted and effective.
Private action would have been more strategic, targeted and effective.
VI. WHAT YOU CAN DO
Write your representatives in government.