Government restrictions against the backdrop of COVID-19 and people’s reactions to them are controversial. States at the federal and local levels impose restrictions on the movement of people and ensure security measures. Some individuals consider governments’ actions illegal because they violate the provisions on freedoms and human rights. To ensure people’s safety and the economy’s stability, the state is guided by the constitution and other legitimate acts while the people are trying to protect their opinion.
The controversy of restrictive measures is the likelihood of an increase in the incidence rate. At the beginning of the coronavirus’s rapid spread, the governments introduced strict restrictions such as a ban on leaving home unnecessarily. It led to discontent among humans, as people lost their leisure time, jobs and felt the pressure. Over time, the restrictions softened, because of which the disease outbreak occurred again. The controversy is based on the need for regulations and their severity since it is possible to follow the mask regime for protection.
The difference between restriction supporters and opponents lies in understanding people’s danger of severity and consequences. Opponents believe they will not get sick or cause severe effects. Supporters are dissatisfied because of the frivolous attitude to the problem; they think that only adherence to strict rules will defeat the disease. Each person assesses the situation differently, based on their principles and views, which does not allow coming to a consensus.
The coronavirus pandemic hurts individuals, the economy, and society. COVID-19 leads to poor health, sometimes death, and diseases after a person has been ill. The community is in a constant stress state since even compliance supporters with safety measures are social creatures. According to Venkatachary et al., the global economy will fall by 3% during the pandemic, with more severe consequences than the economic crisis of 2008-2009 (43). The coronavirus and the restrictions associated with it have transformed people’s lives and the global economy for the worse.
The government’s primary role is to ensure the safety and well-being of the people by all means. It is necessary to support citizens with products, personal protective equipment since many have lost their jobs due to the pandemic. Also, the government should introduce tax incentives and extend the term for their payment for the affected businesses to create a lack of panic among citizens. An organizational policy to promote safety must be established as soon as possible and maintain continuity for the best impact.
States at all levels must promote the protection and provide the resources to do so in need. A greater responsibility lies with the regional authorities, as this is an easier way to track and satisfy consumers’ needs. Altman notes that Trump shifted the major responsibility to regional states, while the federal one will play a secondary role in this matter (1). Power distribution is an essential thing in forming a state organization, but all its divisions must support the common goal of serving the people.
The General U.S. Constitution and the Texas State Constitution address combating coronavirus in different ways. The US Constitution provides imposing severe restrictions to fight disease, fines, and arrests. It leads to the dissatisfaction of citizens and the emergence of controversial and judicial questions. The Texas Constitution shifts more responsibility to the citizens themselves. Penalties are applied only when the police immediately catch a person for violating restrictions. The laws play a crucial role since the region’s situation and the country depends on them.
Governments’ actions in such situations have previously sparked controversy over restrictions on freedom and security. Experience shows that human rights violations have never been resolved. For example, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, a court ruled that the constitution requires smallpox vaccination to ensure others’ safety (Chemerinsky). Governments try to act for the people’s benefit, especially in difficult situations, but people do not always understand these measures’ necessity and legitimacy.
Governments make enough efforts to ensure public safety, as they managed to decrease the rate of infection rates expansion after introducing measures. At times, it may seem that governments are doing too much, but that would not lead to the current good results. It is difficult to determine the sufficiency of management actions on the people’s part since everyone has their own opinion; based on the general picture, they are sufficient.
Local governments should carry out the initial reaction, so they better see and understand the environment. According to Haffajee and Mello’s study, the federalist structure cannot fully cover health issues, so other options are considered (2). The local States are the first persons who can replace problems themselves and not create difficulties for different regions. An immediate response can resolve the virus’s initial spread, so the state government should do primary protection.
According to the authorities, the country’s recovery can be accelerated by allocating $6 trillion for it. The economic system is an integral part of every person’s life since we all take part in market relations, affecting businesses and people’s income. The coronavirus has strangely spoiled the economic component, which is why significant funds are needed to restore it, which government agencies can only provide.
The legality and necessity of government measures such as travel restrictions and social distance are controversial, partly violating human rights. The problem retires in the critical inconsistency of concepts on both sides. For example, in different states, the authorities apply restrictions they consider necessary. The people also have different opinions about the necessity, sufficiency, and observance of the rules. The study carried out in this work helped to understand that the federal state is fulfilling its role of protecting citizens to a sufficient extent, as infection rates are decreasing, and people are almost back to regular life.
Works Cited
Altman, Drew. “Understanding the US Failure on Coronavirus — an Essay by Drew Altman.” British Medical Journal, vol. 370, no. 3417, 2020, pp. 1–3.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Yes, Government Can Restrict Your Liberty to Protect Public Health.” Los Angeles Times, 2020, Web.
Haffajee, Rebecca L., and Michelle M. Mello. “Thinking Globally, Acting Locally — the U.S. Response to Covid-19.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 382, no. 22, 2020, pp. 1–3.
Venkatachary, Sampath Kumar, et al. “COVID-19 – An Insight into Various Impacts on Health, Society and Economy.” International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, vol. 10, no. 4, 2020, pp. 39–46.