Responses to coronavirus restrictions run the gamut, from the fear of venturing outside to retrieve mail without a mask to the bizarre “It’s a hoax.” Nonbelievers challenge restrictions intended for the common good, which calls into question the appropriate role of government.
Everyone should acknowledge that the government bears the responsibility to protect its citizens against threats, foreign and domestic. If restrictions are perceived to be for the common good, they are deemed appropriate. Countries that have achieved cooperation from their citizens have experienced infection numbers in decline.
The United States, unfortunately, has too many who prioritize their personal freedoms above the common good, and their refusal to acknowledge the global pandemic as a national emergency is the country’s downfall. This perspective aside, people who cannot accommodate views unlike their own without engaging in polarizing commentary should realize that emotionally charged, personally denigrating language is counterproductive. Whether it be politics, religion, philosophy or the coronavirus, it would help to realize that such language is more of a reflection on the writer than the person or issue written about. That alone should curb the tendency to portray oneself in an irrational, toxic diatribe.
Gordon ClouserDurango
