Is America over-reacting to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its COVID-19 disease?

America is, as of this date, virtually shut-down.  Citizens are forbidden to assemble, to interact except electronically, and in many states more than 5 meeting together, whether on purpose or by accident, may be fined or imprisoned.  A friend commented,j "it took 36 years more than anticipated, but '1984' has finally arrived."  But the government tells us this is due to a medical emergency, is necessary, and temporary.

Such reassurances bring to mind the fact that EVERY tax ever levied in America came with the assurance that it was TEMPORARY. Yet virtually all of them continue to this day.  But perhaps that will not apply to this current assumption and presumption of government(s) to control us all.

But the medical concerns are demonstrably real; as of March 26th, 2020, we have over one thousand (1,000) dead (a mortality rate of just under 2%); there is no vaccine, and necessary medical supplies are less than adequate.  We hear this and accept that "stuff" happens and just obey the directions given to us. And the government is about to finalize spending more that Two Trillion Eight Hundred Billion ($2,800,000,000,000) Dollars response to the challenge.

But as time goes by, history keeps knocking on my mental door asking for a bit more analysis.  What history, do you ask? Consider:
     1.  In 2002-2003 There was a SARS outbreak worldwide.  My research reveals that in 2002, America's total Federal medical expenditure(s) were Four Hundred Twenty-Two Million ($422,000,000) Dollars, and that the SARS mortality rate was Ten (10%) percent,.  There were medical advisories, but no business or social shutdowns mandated by our government at any level.
     2.  In 2009, we had the H1N1 swine flue to deal with. World wide mortality was between One Hundred Fifty-seven (157,000) thousand and Five Hundred Seventy-five (575,000) thousand people.  We spent Two Billion ($2,000,000,000) Dollars to fight this.  Mortality rates differ by age, but one estimate put forth a rate of Three point four (3.4%) percent.  Again, there were medical advisories, but no business or social shutdowns mandated by our government at the Federal or State levels.
     3.  In 2012, there was the MERS to deal with.  World wide, the mortyality rate approached Thirty-five (35%) percent.  America devoted Four Hundred Twenty-two ($422,000,000) Million Dollars to meeting its challenges, although the impact on the United states was minimal.  Neither the Federal or State(s) mandated any shutdown of business activity or social interactions.
    4.  Between the Fall of 2019 and now (Spring of 2020), influenza has resulted in the deaths of over Ten Thousand (10,000) people.  There was no public or governmental outcry except for medical advisories promoting getting "flu shots."  Flue shots have variable rates of protection for those receiving them, as the death rate reveals.  But, neither Federal or State governments mandated shutdowns of business or social ineraction.

A broad historical review of this country's (and the world's) reaction to serious health threats reveals that today's SARS-CoV-2 virus and the resulting COVID-19 illness is remarkable different from similar (arguably) threats in the past.  And that invites the question: Why?

I am not a conspiracy theorist or promoter.  I can't answer the question.  But I believe we should ask those at the highest State and Federal levels to explain.  Today's impact word wide is serious and severe.  Although there are political implications and politics has (in my mind, inappropriately) influenced what should and is being done, politics doesn't seem to be the primary factor in today's reactions.

One possibility is that the world of 2020 is seen and felt by mankind to be a more fearful one than of even eight years ago...but I have no proof ot that.  What is clear, though, is that in the America of 2020 people have accepted fear as the primary controlling factor in their public and private lives.  My father, and I today,would have reacted with a "snort" to any suggestion that because of the chance of catching a cold, getting the flu, or any other illness he should stay home and not conduct his business...that was NOT going to happen. I am in my seventy-seventh year, and I feel perfectly comfortable with making my own choice(s) as to where I should go, who I will see, what business or social activities I will have...all while doing all the logical self-protecting steps available (washing hands, avoiding people with colds, etc.) any semi-intelligent person should take without my government (at any level) mandating my behavior and threatening prosecution by law for disobedience.  That is NOT right...unless my friend was right: 1984 has come, just thirty-six (36) years later than the author predicted.

Politicians retire Rich; should that be?

A member of the House of Representatives, and a United States Senator each receives a salary of One Hundred Seventy-four Thousand ($174,000) Dollars a year.  Each gets allowances for staffing their offices, Office space and travel allowances.  And, of course, each gets status as well as the power to influence the actions of our Federal Government, including impacting our taxes as well as our individual freedoms.  Their performance is important to every citizen.

Some members of both houses have retired in the past couple of years,and more will retire at the end of this year.  A review of how long they served in public orffice, and their net worth on retirement seemed in order.

Senator "A" 18 years service,                net worth:   $2,794,024
Senator "B"  23 years service,               net worth:   $1,695,514
Senator "C" 12 years service,                net worth:   $2,668,017
Representative "1"  22 years service,    net worth:   $2,781,015
Representative "2"  30 years service,    net worth:  $24,290,511
Representative "3"    8 years service,    net worth:    $5,727,032
Representative "4"  35 years service,    net worth:    $1,348,011
Representative "5"  25 years service,    net worth:    $2,464,049

Whether these accumulations of wealth are legal or not is not my point.  Does anyone believe that these increases in net worth can happen of the Congressmen and women involved were spending their time looking after ever constituent equally?

Does anyone wonder why over the years none of these "accumulations" have come under Media scrutiny?

Is there any question about whether or not any of the accumulations (and expenditures) have not seen detailed audits and investigation by ANY legal entity or Inspector General(s)?

I cannot be the first to wonder about the ethics and legality of this sort of activity on the part of those who we euphemistically call "Public Servants.

Any ideas?

is the Electoral College essential to preserve our Republic?

Many of today's students and young adults seem to either have never been taught American history or American Government, or have totally forgotten it.  And I won't spend time here pointing out the woeful performance of all when it comes to answering simple questions about today's elected, and/or appointed office holders and members of the Supreme Court.

What is totally puzzling is the apparent lack of understanding about the purpose of the Electoral College, the way it works, and the rights it guards.

Who wants to do away with the Electoral College? 

Predominantly, it is Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, and those they have successfully indoctrinated. 

Why? 

Because if only the highly populated states need to be courted for votes, those who live in rural areas will no longer count...will no longer be of value to office seekers and their interests will be ignored in favor of satisfying "the mob."

What is their objection to the Electoral College?  It essentially takes away any value from the size of a numerical victory.  Once you win your state, the Electoral College awards you that state's Electoral College votes.  Whether a candidate wins a state by one (1) vote or ten million (10,000,000) votes is immaterial...he or she merely gets that State's Electoral College votes.  The extra 9,999,999 don't matter. 

Why is this of value to the Republic and its citizens as a whole?  It requires a successful candidate to campaign and attempt to prove his or her value to EVERY STATE's voters; It protects the value of ALL States, not just States that have the largest populations.  For a candidate to be elected, his or her value to Wyoming, Idaho, and Rhode Island is just as important as the value to New York, California, Texas, and Florida (among others).

If the Electoral College did NOT exist, those citizens of the United States who lived in the less populated states would not only NEVER see or hear from a Presidential Candidate, their ideas and needs would NEVER be considered by any elected official.

That is what motivated the framers of our Constitution. The less populated colonies demanded protection from being "steamrollered" by the more populated "States" if they were going to be a respected part of the United States of America.

Our President should HAVE TO prove to ALL the voters that he has their interests at heart, not just the people in the most populous States.  Right now, middle America counts too.  The political party that is most populous on the coasts doesn't want that to be so.

The Electoral College puts a damper on "mob rule."  Shear numbers don't, and shouldn't, over-ride the agreement that make the United States of America possible in the first place.  If the Electoral College hadn't been created, neither would our Republic.  And if the Electoral College were to be eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment, this current Republic would also cease to exist as a bastion of individual rights.