Security and liberty

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

1. I think, somewhat ironically, what could be our undoing as a nation in light of the coronavirus (if, arguendo, it's going to be cataclysmic) is our respect for the rights of the individual and civil liberties in general. We can't (and shouldn't) take draconian measures like China can. We can't even do what some European nations can do where (it seems) they mandate top-down measures on the whole of society (e.g. Italy). So for us, generally speaking, social distancing and any other drastic measures have to be voluntary, enacted by local communities and individual states; it can't be coerced by the federal government or the powers that be. I think that's our great strength, but maybe it's also a great weakness when it comes to dealing with an epidemic. So, pace Franklin, it might come down to a choice between security and liberty, even though that's not a choice any full-blooded American would ever wish to make.

2. I think Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during wartime, but I don't know if we should treat the coronavirus pandemic as if we're in a war or similar.

3. If it becomes bad enough, but there's a vaccine, then this also goes to the question of whether we should mandate vaccinations against the coronavirus for the public good, even if there's a significant minority who would be up in arms about it (e.g. anti-vaxxers, libertarians).