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.

How to keep lies from destroying the American Republic

Whines!  Groans!  Cheers! Jeers!  Wringing of hands and dire warnings abound...all over the internet, with particular targeting of "Social Media."  THAT is a misnomer, if I ever saw one...it is NOT social and it is NOT civil.  Social media isn't even truthful, except seemingly by accident.  Not many "thinking" people disagree as to the falsehoods that abound on the internet.

The same complaint(s) are becoming rampant regarding the media, with particular attention on what is euphemistically called the "news" media.  The term "fake news" appears everywhere, both truthfully and falsely applied so often as to make the label ineffective as either a warning or a label (truth in anything, including advertising and public relations, is a rarity).

Politicians and their supporters (does that end up labeling over 90% of our population?) add to the lack of candor, having expanded their falsehoods from campaign promises to include actions and positions actually taken while holding office.

So...is this unacceptable?  If so, to who (or is it "to whom,"...I never did get that right)?  Is there any desire...a heartfelt desire...to change this and return to a more truthful existence for all of us?

It would be nice to believe that such a desire exists.  But...how?  Here are a few ideas to consider...and feel free to think up additional and (hopefully) even more effective ways to accomplish the goal.

First, the so-called "news" media have to be forced to tell the truth and/or label their lies as lies.

Second, internet posting of any kind has to be able to be tracked to the person or organization that is commenting.

Third, all media (including that labeled as "news") has to be made legally responsible for falsehoods.  It is time to, in the interest of Justice, to eliminate the qualification or claim of "absence of malice."  If a person in private life can be legally made responsible for libel and/or slander, so should the "news," whether it be broadcast or print.

Is there any real reason why our people, our country, our government cannot pass laws that require all comments, all stories, all reports be attributed to real people and real organizations so they can be held accountable?  Is there any reason why anyone should be free to repeat slander or libel just by quoting another person?  That should be unlawful unless the person or organization repeating the story has independently verified it with attribution...not anonymously.

Why shouldn't a person that defames another be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind anonymity of the internet?  Require that identification of those posting be available, so that there can be confrontation, both personal and legal.  I see comments on "social" media and in stories that, if the commenter were made public and had to repeat the comments face to fact, would never say the things that they have posted or written.

As I grew up, I was advised to live my life, and speak and write, as if everything I did and said could appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow; think and consider before speaking or writing or acting.  So many today thing there are no such things as consequences.  Or, if there are, that someone ELSE will suffer them.  It is time to stop that thinking.  Time for the chickens to come home to roost...

If the voters demand this and insist that the internet providers not be allowed to censure but that all who use the internet be identifiable and legally liable for comments and statements, we can again enforce a degree of civility.  But...we have to want to accomplish that and take action to demand that.  Will you?