Reactions to the Reactions to the Pandemic (Part 1)

This entry is part 1 of 2 in the series COVID-19 Reactions

This article is Part 1 in a series of essays containing our reflections and perspectives on COVID-19.

It’s been over a month since many state governors have ordered citizens to stay-at-home in their respective states, and even longer since COVID-19 has entered our national and global experience. People across the political, ideological, and theological spectrum are advocating a diverse array of theories, policies, and personal advice to a world blindsided by a major event unprecedented in our lifetimes.

It’s also been a wild ride for punditry. Just about everyone has had to walk back a prediction or forecast about what the data say or what the outcomes of a particular state action should be. For our part, we want to offer our perspectives on what’s happening. Some of us at LCI are in rural areas, and others are in epicenters of the pandemic. Not all are in the United States.

Doug Stuart (Pennsylvania)

Under normal circumstances, quoting a mythical hero from a 2019 film set in 2025 would be a bit awkward. But my early reaction to how humanity will react to COVID echoes Tony Stark’s very human-yet-heroic response to Thanos. Upon returning to threaten to wipe out half of all life again, Thanos tells Stark: “You don’t give up, do you?” Stark replies, “Yep. We’re all kinds of stubborn.” Perhaps it is mystical naïveté hopeless optimism to believe we can give COVID a proper fight. But fighting for our survival is a feature of human existence, and I believe we will fight (and survive) COVID-19. In fact, I believe we will thrive in a post-COVID world. How we do so is, of course, up to us.

Liberty-loving Americans are rightly concerned about the threat of long-lasting state-imposed suppression of our rights and liberties. What is startling to me about the response to this pandemic is that many people think that command and control responses are the only way to fight this. “Strong leadership” is equated with heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all responses by state governors (though some have resisted the temptation). Even if one reluctantly agrees that temporary restrictions are necessary, what should trouble everyone is that state authorities have put themselves in a position where their actions are inscrutable. It’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. It is this losing position that makes many of us feel outraged.

As we are nearing the end of state suppression, we must remember the power grabs and respond by grabbing that power back from the state. We should do whatever it takes to non-violently restore our liberties so that such an authoritarian period is but a mere blip.

Ruth Ryder (Indiana)

We have learned a lot about COVID-19 in the last few months, and it’s important to emphasize that medical science is always learning and trying to determine the best course of action based on the information available at the time. I am not an expert, but I have been listening to those experts who are on the front lines, and it seems clear that COVID is much deadlier than influenza, even if not as deadly as initially imagined. All of the measures to social distance, practice diligent hand hygiene, and protect the vulnerable are good measures to flatten the curve so as to not overwhelm hospitals. However, this could have been achieved through education and the voluntary cooperation of individuals and businesses, and not through government mandate.

Many people have been raised on the idea that there should always be a safety net, either from parents or government or God, to insulate them from risk. All of us are at varying levels of risk for serious illness or death when we become infected with COVID – and most of us will. Some of us are at a higher risk of personal harm due to the economic consequences of having their livelihood destroyed than they are of being seriously harmed by COVID. The elderly and those with compromised immune systems have a different level of risk. Those who live in areas with higher population density are at higher risk than those who live in the remote countryside. Risk is a fact of life. Risk is associated with almost everything we do, and its presence teaches wisdom and patience. Only the individual is capable of weighing the risks and benefits for whether they work or stay home, or for anything else they do. If my neighbor doesn’t even know enough about me to make wise decisions for me, government certainly is in no position to do so. Stopping COVID-19 is not the only thing that matters for human flourishing, and the best thing government can do is to let people make their own decisions.

Surit Dasgupta (India)

This crisis we are faced with today is like a huge mirror that has been presented to us. One that magnifies what we have been doing wrong in society in terms of governance and common interaction. Pandemics will continue to remind us about our mortality, and they will continue to ask questions of us important, age-old questions such as, Should we focus on the use of force to control the population? Should we focus on protecting ourselves at all costs, even at the cost of our neighbors’ well-being?

In my country, people observe with glee when policemen display excessive force towards those who break lockdown laws. This mindset of the masses, as far as I’m concerned, is the real sickness. Once we are healed of this sickness by imitating the perfect human being in Christ Jesus, who voluntarily laid down his life for all of us, we can courageously tackle COVID. We must learn to stop sacrificing our neighbors, even in spirit. Loving our neighbors is the key.

Matthew Bellis (Pennsylvania)

From the moment that COVID-19 looked as though it would be a worldwide epidemiological nightmare, we as free individuals took the stress of the matter upon ourselves to shelter, lockdown, and flatten the curve. The experts seemed to be singing from the same hymnal, and the overwhelming din of medical prognostications lulled people all over the world into a subservient fear induced slumber. Thinking that we were doing the morally right and just thing, we allowed our lives and livelihoods to be intruded upon as a quartered soldier in the sanctity of our homes. As the days turned into weeks, memories grew longer. Individuals all over the country recognized the intrusion that had been so subversively and welcomingly induced had become a millstone of statism around our necks. Stories of devastating economic impact that started to rise and give a light of public scorn onto situations of abuse, suicide, depression, and complacency began to surface to the shared cultural consciousness.

Protestors grabbed their pickets, and a growing voice of opposition began to swell. Many called for reason, and petitioned their governments to use the science and data driven approach that had been originally touted, yet was quickly abandoned. Pressure began to rise in the state house, as well as the farmhouse, to reopen the state, remove the restrictions, rescind the shelter orders, and return to normalcy. Even as the pressure began to work, the science and metrics for decision making still did not make their way into movements of opening the state. The average sovereign citizen is left to wonder in what tarot carded logic was the lockdown put in place, and if the encroachment of his liberty was at best a political game.

Wade Beavers (Wyoming)

We have had the privilege of social-distancing in Dubois, Wyoming, a town of approximately 960 people (which, according to some, qualifies as the “most remote town in the lower 48”). Life is certainly different under the shadow of COVID-19 (no church, in-person school or sit-down dining), but daily life has not stopped and, in fact, the impact could be accurately described for most people as something more than an inconvenience but less than a disruption. Commerce here picks up significantly around Memorial Day and continues apace through Labor Day, but until then each year it is not uncommon for some shops to close and traffic to cease. In that environment, the Governor’s light-handed mitigation rules have not generated near the angst nor the disruption experienced in other parts of the country. (For reference, Wyoming’s population density is around 6 people per square mile; NYC’s, by contrast, is around 26,000 people.) Some of my rancher friends arguably wouldn’t even know things have changed but for listening to the news, which at least one of them has stopped doing.

It has been fascinating, however, to think about the virus and its disparate psychological impact on different populations. Like everyone else, I read and hear perspectives from culturally and geographically diverse sources. Many of those perspectives, or more accurately, opinions, would be alien to most of the people in Dubois. One venerated Christian organization sent an email newsletter yesterday with the following statement: “The global pandemic known as the coronavirus (COVID-19) is now a local crisis – everywhere.” That characterization is certainly untrue, as it would be inaccurate to describe the virus as a local “crisis” in Dubois and similar rural outposts across the country. That mischaracterization may be attributed in part to simple myopia; people focus on what’s around them. It seems, however, that certain cultures (including political cultures) are simply less defiant than others in denying the virus control over their state of mind and the conduct of their lives. (One can debate the prudence of that stance, but thus far there does not seem to be an inverse relationship between the gravity of perception and the gravity of medical impact.) Much of rural America understands that, for whatever reasons, COVID-19 has not resulted in the health crisis that many predicted and promulgated as the basis for the pandemic panic, and thus they are unwilling to capitulate to the worst of those fears in areas where the actual impact – other than the response – is statistically similar to the health risks we regularly face on an annual basis without panic, fear or, oddly, even temporal awareness. The people of Wyoming certainly don’t lack compassion for New Yorkers or their suffering, but the pervading sense of self-sufficiency and independence that defines Wyomingites leads them away from accepting vicariously the narrative that defines the reality of some pockets of the country and the psychological profile of much of the remainder.

Elias Hage (New York City)

As a doctoral student in NYC, I’m awed by how much change New Yorkers have tolerated thus far. That’s not to say that the change should not be tolerated, but I would not have guessed that thousands of bar, barber, and haberdashery owners would indefinitely close down their primary source of income. And I never could have imagined an Easter of empty churches. It’s all made me wonder how tenuous society and culture is.

I believe that the response to COVID-19 has greatly diminished its spread. I worry that people, having grown weary of staying home, will compare the number of infected to the original estimates and assume that the disease was not as serious as we made it out to be, rather than the fact that we succeeded in diminishing its spread. As a result, people may be less cautious during a second spike. Can NYC go through this again? I have my doubts.

Logistically speaking, I don’t understand why local and state governments are not taking advantage of the hundreds of public schools that have been closed for the year. Each school has hundreds of boxes of gloves, cleaning supplies, office supplies, etc. These supplies were purchased with money allocated for this school year, but they will not be used. The schools are already allocated money to resupply these goods for next year. Rather than leave these supplies in empty schools, they could be reallocated to police departments, fire departments, and clinics that currently need them.

Kyle Rasmus (Pennsylvania)

Reflecting on the events of this past month, I believe the Coronavirus reinforces a very important message for the modern church. For many, the only obvious way to combat the Coronavirus involves state intervention by way of lockdowns on local businesses that politicians deem “non-essential.” While it is not my job as a believer to decide what elected officials, businesses and individuals do, I am responsible for my own actions and attitude amidst this pandemic.

I believe it is possible for believers to secure victory during this seemingly hopeless season of life in the same that Christ does. The worldly response to the Coronavirus is not unlike what we see in the actions of the Nation of Israel throughout the Old Testament. God tells us to trust Him, yet we reject his desires for us as His chosen people and replace them with our own idolatrous ones. Reminding ourselves of Christ’s faithfulness frees us from the false belief that man has answers that God does not. For the modern church, maybe our victory is not won through public policy, violence, or coercion. As Christians, we must constantly remind ourselves of Christ’s example and allow our thoughts and actions to be influenced by His faithfulness.

Series NavigationPrevious Post: Next Post: Next Post:

Share this article:

Subscribe by Email

Whenever there's a new article or episode, you'll get an email once a day! 

*by signing up, you also agree to get weekly updates to our newsletter

Join our Mailing list!

Sign up and receive updates any day we publish a new article or podcast episode!