No Downside

Want to know why we’re seeing politicians of every stripe calling for more and more restrictive quarantine measures against the COVID-19 coronavirus? Simple…it’s because they’ve done their risk assessment and concluded that there is no downside whatsoever for them to do so. At the same time, there is a downside for not doing it.

If they don’t basically put us all on house arrest and the virus kills people by the truckload, they face leaving behind a legacy which reads as inaction and death. Not a good look. And if they don’t restrict us and the virus doesn’t stack bodies like cordwood, then they look very…um…non-essential.

On the other hand, what do they risk by getting their dictator on and locking us down as hard as we’ll tolerate? If…even in the face of their stringent quarantine restrictions…there are still tons of fatalities, they can say, “I took absolutely every step I could take to prevent this.” But if the mountains of dead fail to materialize? Then they claim, “See?! It worked. I saved lives and you should be thanking me. Sure, lots of people lost their livelihoods and our economy is in a depression unlike any in 100 years, but if it saves one life….”

Rest assured, there is no complex analysis of scientific models or anything like that going on in the minds of these politicians. They are doing nothing more than a simple assessment of their own personal and professional risk based on the decisions they’re making…and the lowest risk course of action for them is “LOCK DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!” Regardless of how it affects you and me, they can no longer be accused of inaction, and they can claim to have done the right thing regardless of outcome.

From their perspective, a total lockdown has no downside. Think about that before you assume they are acting in your best interest.