The Government’s Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic

The Government’s Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic
No unread replies. No replies.
See this from a recent AP story: The San Francisco Bay area, encompassing about 7 million people, is
now on lockdown. This means that these people have been ordered by the government “to shelter at their
homes and only leave for ‘essential reasons’, the strictest measures in America so far, mimicking orders
already in place across Europe in a desperate attempt to slow the spread of coronavirus.” And Dr. Fauci,
the head of the federal government’s National Institutes of Health, said that he would like to see a similar
order put in place for the entire country for 14 days.
We are currently covering the module on civil liberties. The question to be asked here is obvious: How are
can, or maybe how far should, our government (national, state, and local) go when it comes to responding
to a disaster like the currental public health crisis? We all know that during times of war, for example,
civil liberties often go out the door (see the internment of Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl
Harbor, or the backlash against Arab Americans and Muslims after 9/11, or even President Lincoln
unilaterally suspending habeas corpus in certain parts of the country during the Civil War). Is this one of
those moments when we should place our civil liberties in abeyance while the various levels of
government enact restrictions on our liberty for the good of society as a whole?
Even President Trump, who initially downplayed the situation and encouraged people to go about their
business, has now stated publicly that Americans should avoid gathering in numbers greater than ten
persons. That says a lot–that a President who has generally disregarded science and expertise in general is
now taking the advice of experts like Dr. Fauci very seriously and promoting strict public health measures
(albeit he has yet to issue the sort of national mandatory restrictions that Fauci seems to favor)