Personal liberty and individual freedom during a pandemic

Other than being global in extent, the COVID-19 pandemic of today is nothing like the influenza pandemic following World War I. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is not just another kind of “flu.”

Information, misinformation, disinformation

The information and more often misinformation or even disinformation provided by government agencies throughout the world has been, and still is colored by political considerations and does not accurately reflect the information from scientists in laboratories working on the virus the disease day and night throughout the world.

The pronouncements of many elected officials and media pundits, no matter how well-intentioned, are often inaccurate and based upon limited understanding of the Science underlying virology and the other disciplines required to comprehend the magnitude of the present pandemic. There is even less understanding of the basic principles of epidemiology and the mechanisms of disease transmission throughout the world. In some cases, many elected officials and bureaucrats shown appalling lack of knowledge about the basic arithmetic of exponential growth.

Looking at the mask wearing controversy

The current controversy over wearing masks in public and vaccination is being fueled by statements and pronouncements circulated by the mass media without any independent verification from the independent scientific community.
The general public has been poorly served by the American education system over the last 50 years in the area of basic scientific literacy. The level of information in biology, biochemistry, and medicine has increased dramatically during that period leaving the general public unable to independently evaluate the advertising and marketing efforts of large pharmaceutical companies and physicians who lack a sound basic education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Except in the areas of surgery and emergency medicine, medical school education consists in ordering tests according to the symptoms presented and subjecting the results to a primitive B-tree analysis of a general binary (either this or that) search tree culminating in a prescription for some medication or referral to a “specialist” of some kind who will order more tests and conduct a slightly more refined B-tree analysis culminating in a prescription or some kind of procedure or further test.

Disease and human history

Throughout human history large concentrations of human beings living in close quarters with poor sanitation and drinking water of questionable quality led to outbreaks of disease and occasionally plagues. This problem has only been exacerbated by the ease of modern transportation throughout the world and mobility of many of the world’s peoples, many of them carriers of disease.

The scientific method in the age of Social Media

The scientific method which has driven the growth of human civilization since the 15th century is based upon the collection of data, verification of its accuracy and the development of hypotheses which might explain it, followed by collection of more data and testing of that hypothesis.
If the hypothesis continues to explain the data and eventually predict where new data may be found, the hypothesis may be promoted to a “theory.” As further data validates the theory, eventually the scientific community becomes sufficiently confident in the truth and accuracy of the theory, that from it a “Law” may be stated, subject always, however, to challenge and being refuted by new data inconsistent with the Law.

Gravity is the most obvious example of such a Law from the physical world. Similarly, the heliocentric theory describing the organization of our solar system. That the earth rotates such that the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west is another generally accepted theory upon which people rely every day.

Unfortunately, there are very few theories developed by human beings over the millennia since the last Ice Age which have survived long enough to become “Laws.”

Look at the data not the media

The data clearly shows that a worldwide pandemic exists and people are dying in numbers exceeding those regularly expected each year. The early data which has been accumulated about these unexpected deaths seems to indicate an association with a SARS-CoV-2 virus. The association is strong but there is still no direct experimental evidence of causality or a causal relationship between the virus and the disease which is resulting in the excessive number of unexpected deaths in a variety of populations.

That is a long-winded, reasonably precise, scientifically accurate statement of the extent of human knowledge about the COVID-19 pandemic at this time. Of course, those that suggest proof requires human experiments showing the relation between infection with the virus and subsequent development of the disease, have forgotten the lessons from the gallows at Nuremberg following World War II.

Nevertheless, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence at this time to establish some relationship between an infection with the virus and subsequent development of the disease we have designated COVID-19.

Therefore, in the interests of public health, it would be prudent to limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by whatever practical means are available.

How is the virus transmitted?

The generally accepted scientific evidence clearly establishes that the virus is transmitted through the air from an infected individual who is “shedding” active virus particles every time they exhale.

It is also generally accepted that N-95 masks limit the airborne spread of the virus from infected individuals. Therefore, it would seem reasonably prudent to wear an N-95 mask in public. We must also not forget that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can also be spread by contact. Therefore, it is equally prudent to disinfect common surfaces and regularly wash your hands whether you are infected or not.

Personal freedom and individual liberty

Adding further fuel to the controversy is a distorted idea personal freedom and “Liberty.” The American revolution was fought to free the American people from the constraints imposed upon their economic growth and personal liberty by a faraway King an ocean away from reality in the “New World.”

The constitutional right to personal freedom and individual liberty, however, becomes limited and circumscribed upon entry into a public space shared by others who have similar constitutional rights. This is why we have traffic laws and other limitations on human freedom and individual liberty in order to protect the safety of all.

The question of the moment is whether requiring individuals entering upon public spaces to wear N-95 masks is an unconstitutional infringement upon personal freedom and individual liberty.
If there is the potential to limit the spread of a potentially fatal infectious disease by wearing a mask when in a public space, it is well within the “police power” of government to protect the “public health, safety, and welfare.”
Requiring individuals to wear N-95 masks when they enter a public space is no more onerous than requiring occupants of a motor vehicle to, “Buckle up for safety.” Failing to wear a seatbelt in a motor vehicle operating on a public highway is a violation subject to a fine. Similarly, prohibition of texting while operating a motor vehicle or requiring use of hands-free telephone communication devices while operating a motor vehicle are examples of the police power which have become generally accepted. A requirement to wear N-95 masks in public places is no more onerous and no less necessary at this time.

The delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is different

One of the most troubling papers to come out in the last few weeks shows that the Delta strain of the virus has somehow managed to share its ability to evade antibodies with the earlier alpha variant of the virus and that new variants are beginning to emerge as the virus genome seems to acquire information about the mechanism of antibody protection and evolves to evade it.

It appears that successor strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus evolving from the Delta variant will be even more virulent and contagious. Unlike influenza, each succeeding mutation and variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is more lethal and contagious than its predecessor.
The COVID-19 pandemic is not like the influenza pandemic following World War I nor the mythical swine flu epidemic of 1976.

If this is truly the case, no one has a constitutional right to spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

There is no constitutional right to become the Typhoid Mary of COVID-19

The limits on person freedom

While every American citizen has an absolute right to assume the risk of infection with a coronavirus which may lead to their death from the COVID-19 disease, there is no constitutional right for anyone to increase the risk of infection for other Americans.

The coronavirus which causes the COVID-19 disease, SARS-CoV-2, spreads by inhaling airborne particles containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus shed by infected individuals or by physical contact with surfaces which have become contaminated with the virus. Those are generally undisputed and essentially unchallengeable facts which have been confirmed by a number of accepted experiments at a number of scientific research facilities in many countries.

Contamination of local airspace with SARS-CoV-2-contaminated airborne particles whether indoors or outdoors can be limited and even prevented by blocking the virus shed by individuals and carried on the air they exhale from their nose and mouth with physical barriers such as surgical masks. Isolation and sheltering in place also limits the spread of the virus.

Requiring masks is a proper exercise of the police power

Under the United States Constitution, the police power of the State and to a lesser extent its municipal subdivisions as well as the federal government permit restrictions, limitations, and even outright prohibition of individual conduct which threatens the public health, safety, and welfare.

Generally, the police power of the state is exercised by legislative bodies composed of representatives elected by and for the benefit of the sovereign people. In emergencies, where there has been proper delegation of power by elected representatives of the People, chief executives such as the President of the United States, State Governors, and in some cases, the chief executives of municipal subdivisions such as the Mayor of a city may wield the police power of the State in response to an emergency. That response, however, must eventually be ratified and affirmed by the Congress or the State Legislatures, and, in extreme cases, approved by the Courts.

Anytime the police power of the State is invoked to limit, restrict, or prohibit the freedom of action of an individual it is necessary to balance individual civil rights against the collective public health, safety and welfare. Any substantive challenge to a restriction on individual rights and freedom of action is eventually resolved by a determination usually by the Courts, but occasionally by the voters as they did with Prohibition and its subsequent repeal by the Twenty-first Amendment.

Slavery and the Jim Crow laws which followed close upon the American Civil War are just two examples of widespread exercise of the police power against an entire class of citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment was meant to extend the fundamental rights of all Americans guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It was only partially successful. It took decades before women became entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of free American citizens such as the right to vote. Unequal pay for women and other entire groups in American society still exists as does the unequal enforcement of criminal laws in many areas.

The police power during a pandemic

In American law, however, no doubt remains that the basic police power of the State extends to all public spaces without exception.

Because infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus creates a substantial risk of debilitating disease and death from COVID-19, it is not unreasonable and certainly not a violation of constitutional rights for government at all levels to require the use of personal protective equipment such as masks covering the nose and mouth of any individual using a public airspace shared with other individuals.

Every individual entering upon a public space has a fundamental human and civil right to be free of the risk of infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and likewise the nondelegable duty to take such action as will limit the risk to other individuals sharing the public space with them.

It should not require criminal sanctions enforced by law enforcement officers and public prosecutors to establish a fundamental rule of public health such as wearing masks to prevent airborne spread of the coronavirus.

Unfortunately, it appears that respect for the health and safety of others is not a universally accepted principle of life in America. There are individuals, starting with the 45th President of the United States, who believe that everyone has an unfettered constitutional right to freely infect other individuals with a potentially life-threatening virus.
However, there is absolutely no legal basis in Anglo-American Jurisprudence for that position.

Essential services

While the use of the police power to impose a requirement to cover your nose and mouth in any public space should be non-controversial, other pandemic-spawned public health measures are less clearly justified.

In a civilized society such as we claim exists in the United States today, “No man is an island.” The interdependencies among individuals and groups of individuals providing goods and services to others increases rapidly with the number and density of people dependent upon those goods and services. How do we assure that all the people will be able to obtain the goods and services they need?

Does the government have the right to compel those who provide essential services to accept the risk associated with providing those services to individuals who might be infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus? How far should the executive power of the State be allowed to extend?

Who is in charge?

There is no question that legislation requiring individuals to wear masks in public spaces is both reasonable and certainly constitutional under the police power. It is also reasonable to allow State Governors and the President of the United States to impose such a regulation on a temporary basis while the State Legislatures or the Congress deliberate over the appropriate legislation. Although a pandemic may require strong and immediate executive action, the President and the Governors may not assume the power of dictators.
The COVID-19 pandemic is well over a year old. It is time for the Legislators and the Congress to go back to work — in person or online—and address the real issues of public safety, civil rights, and individual freedom.

Are there limits on religious freedom?

There are some religious groups who claim they have an absolute right to assemble for the purpose of exercising their right to worship as they choose. So long as they are within their religious spaces the State has no right to limit their freedoms within that space. However, the state does have the right to limit the extent to which an infectious disease exchanged and circulated by one group can be allowed to infect others who have not accepted the risk.

Those who assemble in their house of worship in a time of pandemic do not have the right to move into public spaces such as trains and buses, schools, and supermarkets where they might contaminate others who do not share their religious beliefs. Their right to freedom of religious assembly is limited by their obligation not to create a risk to those who are not part of that assembly. They be required by law to wait a reasonable period of quarantine before they are allowed to expose others in public spaces outside their community limits.

The same considerations apply with respect to theaters, sports arenas, and other venues where large numbers of people assemble.

Travel on public conveyances?

Travel on public conveyances has to be viewed in terms of the nature of the public conveyance.
A cruise ship where all of the passengers have chosen to board voluntarily and an aircraft when the passengers have alternative means of reaching their destination are significantly different from a subway car or bus which may represent the only means by which large numbers of people can reach their places of employment or other necessary destinations.

There is no question that a requirement to wear a N-95 surgical mask and maintain some kind of social distance separation while traveling on a public conveyance is not an unreasonable limitation of constitutional rights.

How many deaths are acceptable?

Death from illness and disease whether it is influenza or some other transmissible disease or Type II diabetes and heart disease which may be attributable to lifestyle choices by individuals, is a generally accepted element of life in America.

The right to personal mobility and the freedom to assemble are basic elements of the Bill of Rights, but those rights can be limited by similar rights particularly the right to life and freedom from the threat of contagious diseases of other individuals. Government may temporarily exercise the police power of the sovereign people and limit personal mobility, freedom of association, and the right to assemble to some extent in order to protect the public health of everyone to the extent possible.

Acceptable risk

The ultimate question is how much risk is acceptable to all the people of America.

There is an increasing body of substantial credible scientific evidence that the rate of infection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is such that without considerable effort to contain its transmission, many individuals will become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to some extent and may contract the CORONA-19 disease. There is enough reliable empirical evidence that limiting transmission by wearing surgical masks and maintaining a reasonable amount of social distance in public spaces can decrease the risk of becoming infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and contracting the COVID-19 disease.

In the absence of any reliable scientific evidence to the contrary a legislative requirement for every individual to cover their nose and mouth with an N-95 mask while they are in public places and wherever possible maintain reasonable social distance from other individuals in those public places, particularly indoors, is not an unreasonable limit on individual civil rights and personal freedom.

This is a matter that our elected representatives in Congress and the state legislatures must address. It cannot be left as a power vacuum for the President of the United States or the Governor of any state to fill as a dictator. It is time for our elected representatives in Congress and the State Legislatures to go back to work and address these fundamental issues.

Vaccination

The question of vaccination, particularly government mandated and enforced vaccination, is much more troubling.

The substantial credible scientific evidence necessary to support a vaccination mandate does not yet exist!

The frantic search for a single vaccine which will prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus from causing the COVID-19 disease continues, even as the virus itself mutates as soon as it is threatened.

The data is still being gathered and much of it is of questionable accuracy. Nevertheless, efforts by independent scientific laboratories throughout the world is leading to a very disturbing conclusion. The SARS-CoV-2 virus may not be destroyed by antibodies created by vaccines which are now available and even those still under development.
Developing an effective vaccine for a specific virus is a long and difficult process. It takes even longer and is more difficult when the virus mutates quickly such as the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 disease.
The following table makes many concerned individuals including many scientists question whethere the present vaccines, while of some value, can bring the COVID-19 pandemic to an end in the near future.

Fortunately, the amount of high-quality research which has been published online and interactively over the last three or four months provides some hope that a treatment for the COVID-19 disease once it becomes manifest in a patient can be found.

Swine flu: panic not pandemic

The public resistance to widespread vaccination and even more so to compulsory vaccination has its most recent origin in the government created threat of a “swine flu” pandemic in 1976. Political hyperbole and outright misrepresentation by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) surrounding the swine flu and the need for vaccination to prevent its spread led 45 million Americans to become vaccinated.
Of those who were vaccinated, at least 4000 became ill with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) and at least 300 of them died while most of the others incurred significant neurological damage with varying degrees of disability.
GBS is a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the nervous system. The demyelinating form of Guillain-Barre syndrome destroys the protective covering of the peripheral nerves (myelin sheath), preventing the nerves from transmitting signals to the brain.

The exact cause of Guillain-Barre syndrome is unknown. But two-thirds of patients report symptoms of an infection in the six weeks preceding.
There is no known cure for Guillain-Barre syndrome. The mortality rate is 4% to 7%. Between 60-80% of people are able to walk after six months but may experience a lifetime of lingering effects such as weakness, numbness or fatigue.
Two years after the mass swine flu vaccination campaign, investigative reporter Mike Wallace on the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes revealed the true story of the swine flu “pandemic” and the CDC vaccination program. The following is a link to a YouTube clip showing the 60 Minutes interview conducted by Mike Wallace.

The more nefarious story of the negotiations between the major pharmaceutical companies producing vaccines and an influential group of Congressional leaders which led to federal legislation prohibiting litigation against manufacturers of vaccines and protecting those manufacturers from civil liability for illness or death attributable to the vaccines has yet to be fully told.

After the swine flu panic

Shortly after the swine flu pandemic faded into the mists of urban legend, CDC ceased to collect information concerning adverse outcomes to vaccines, abdicating that responsibility to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which did little to collect the information and at the behest of the pharmaceutical companies limited its reporting and distribution.
As we saw with the tragedy of thalidomide as a treatment for morning sickness, CDC once provided some kind of check or watchdog on vaccines and other medications approved by FDA after they were released for public use. Unfortunately, shortly after the swine flu legislation was signed into law, the CDC stopped looking into adverse reactions to drugs and medications and modified its policies with respect to collecting and reporting statistical data about disease to the American people.

The problem today is that there is no generally accepted trustworthy source of statistical information about the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or even about the actual incidence of the COVID-19 disease. It is becoming apparent that the mortality statistics of death from the COVID-19 disease attributable to the SARS-CoV-2 virus are also unreliable.

Without reliable information and data about the mortality from COVID-19 there is no way to evaluate the effectiveness of any of the COVID-19 vaccines.
There is even less reliable information and data about the transmission of the virus to those patients who subsequently became seriously ill and/or died after receiving a vaccination.

Epidemiology upon which public decisions can be based depends upon verifiable data from reliable sources. With respect to the epidemiology of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease there is little verifiable data from reliable sources.

While it appears that there is anecdotal evidence that inoculation with one of the approved vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 seems to prevent acute occurrences of the COVID-19 disease requiring hospitalization with a significant risk of death, there is insufficient reliable data to confirm that observation. This lack of verifiable data from reliable sources increases public distrust of government pronouncements.

The issue of safety

The other reason for public reluctance to accept vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the lack of any significant published studies in the open literature clearly establishing the safety of the present commercial versions of the vaccines.
The general public is being asked to accept statements from the United States Food & Drug Administration on faith without the opportunity to examine the data upon which the statements are based or with any assurance that the data was provided by reliable and trustworthy sources and has been verified by independent scientists.
The dismal record of FDA oversight of the commercial pharmaceutical industry and the well-established revolving door between FDA/CDC and large pharmaceutical companies does not encourage a feeling of trust in the general public.

Until reliable, independently verifiable, and generally accepted evidence exists that inoculation with one of the commercially available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines actually does prevent development of the COVID-19 disease in individuals infected with the virus, or significantly mitigates the effects of the COVID-19 disease in those individuals who contract the disease after vaccination, there is no scientific basis for a government mandate requiring vaccination.