Why Another Month of State-wide Lockdown Is A Bad Idea for Illinois
By Joel Settecase
This article was updated to fix a few typos and errors.
First, A Disclaimer
In case I need to remind anyone, my son is a heart transplant recipient, and I can work from home. Although my family has been through a lot, we have happily not been financially affected by the economic shutdown. Additionally, we have an extended family member who currently has COVID-19 (contracted while in lockdown, actually), for whom we are praying for a swift and total recovery.
All that to say, I am not writing this out of selfish concern for my own monetary situation. Neither am I in any hurry for us all to rush out and start breathing on each other and touching germ-ridden doorknobs and toilets again. I have a vested interest in keeping this virus at bay, and no business of my own to re-open. Therefore, I write this dispassionately.
I want to share my concerns about our current situation, address some objections you may have, tell you about my desire going forward, and make a few suggestions that seem good from my own limited perspective. I am also writing for myself, and my thoughts do not reflect the positions or opinions of any organizations I am affiliated with.
My Concern(s)
I want to keep my loved ones safe. However, I do not believe that my neighbors, many of whom are lower-income and deemed “non-essential,” should be driven into poverty, depression and ruin because of the risk to vulnerable people like my family. We want Illinois to stay healthy, but we must also want Illinoisians to stay free. There has to be a way forward that seeks to protect all the vulnerable and to avoid eroding our liberties.
It is my opinion that the current decision by Governor J. B. Pritzker, to extend the statewide lockdown through the end of May, misses the mark. And I say that out of full, biblically-mandated honor for Gov. Pritzker and the state legislators. I submit to the governing authorities, even if I recognize that their current response may be incorrect. The picture accompanying this article is a picture of my whiteboard in my study, reminding me to pray for our governor. I am praying.
Now, that said, I say their response misses the mark for a few reasons. I will list those reasons here, and then expand on them a bit more below.
It unwisely applies indiscriminately to the whole state, irrespective of various regions’ respective rates of risk (Illinois is a big, diverse state).
It unfairly forces businesses to stay closed and workers to stay home, putting those who are not at risk of dying from the virus at undue risk for financial and mental ruin instead.
It sets an unhealthy precedent and exhibits mission drift away from the original, stated response of the lockdown.
My Desire
Here’s my take: there must be a biblical, and sensible, approach to this pandemic that seeks to avoid knee-jerk, panic-based lurching in either direction. It won’t be easy, and it will undoubtedly take a lot of thought and consideration—and prayer. My desire is that we would collectively, as citizens, think carefully and creatively about how to proceed. We must keep our feet on the ground, and we must not lose our heads. Those of us who are Christians must seek to move forward in a biblical way and encourage others to do likewise, believing that the, “fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Pr 9:10).
I know there are ideas abroad ranging from recklessly reopening immediately, all the way to forcing everyone to stay in through summer and giving income from the government (which is by necessity from ourselves and our neighbors). The former would favor liberty at the expense of health, while the latter would promote health at the expense of liberty. Both would be wrong.
Do I Just Miss My Favorite Cafe?
I do miss working from cafes and libraries around the city. However, this is not about wanting to hit up my favorite coffee shop.
It’s about wanting to protect all my neighbors—those who are vulnerable both biologically and economically, not to mention mentally (mental health and depression are very real concerns for people in isolation)—from ill health and potential death. That includes both my son and the owners of my favorite coffee shops. They matter too.
As I mentioned above, Illinois is a huge state. What might be good for Chicagoland, might not be the best option for Peoria, Danville or Harrisburg (or areas where risks may be lower).
Yes, I know the argument: many who have the coronavirus are asymptomatic, and they could unwittingly spread it to someone vulnerable. This is why I am in favor of vulnerable people, and those caring for them, making wise and well-informed decisions, and taking extra and abundantly-cautious measures to protect themselves. This is a more biblical methodology than the current path of (arbitrarily) designating some workers to be “essential” and forcing everyone else, the so-called “non-essential,” to stay home by fiat.
Do I Want People To Die?
No, I do not want people to die. I do not want the virus to spread. I do not want our hospitals to be overrun. However, I also understand—and we all must keep this in mind—that there are other elements of risk here than the virus alone. People’s livelihoods, households, and mental health are at stake.
During times of economic recession and depression, the suicide rate goes up. Families and households suffer. People are evicted from their homes. I do not want to see any of that; none of us want to see that.
At this point, you may object that lives trump livelihoods. And you would be right (this is why, for example, the pro-abortion argument that a mother ought to be able to “terminate her pregnancy” for the sake of her career is a bad one). However, livelihoods do matter. They keep us alive and healthy in many ways. And no, a government-sourced income, stolen from our neighbors and our children through taxation, debt creation and money printing, is not a good long term substitute.
Especially given the surprising failure of the coronavirus to live up to the dire models (which did factor in our mitigation efforts)—see these statements from Dr. Birx—and that many, many more Americans have already caught and recovered from the virus than had previously been thought—see here and here—(on the one hand indicating an alarmingly greater ability for it to spread, but also a reassuringly lower risk of negative effects for the vast majority of the population), in light of all this, is this not the time to pause and carefully consider whether, in our desire to keep people healthy and alive, we are causing more harm than good?
Now that we understand the virus better (though not completely), do we really want to double down on a top-down approach, rather than beginning to let informed citizens make decisions for themselves, to keep themselves safe while also regaining the ability to earn a living?
And Furthermore…
Time does not permit me to share all my thoughts about what kind of precedent this is setting, either, but I will say a few words.
How much encouragement do we really want to give our representatives to lock us down when a potential crisis rears its ugly head?
Bear in mind that the states who enforced lockdowns initially did so for the stated reason, not of preventing everyone from catching the virus, but rather to flatten the curve to keep our health care systems from being overrun. This is what Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, standing with Gov. Pritzker for his March 15 announcement that he would be closing bars and restaurants, said:
We are also doing everything we can to flatten the curve and mitigate the transmission of this virus… Our efforts, both at the city, county and state level are rooted in science and data (source).
Now that the curve has shown signs of being flattened (and, nationwide, the curve has turned out not to be as high as initially predicted), is this still the goal? Even if the filling of hospitals is still a concern (Pritzker has said it is) is the overrunning of hospitals even a clear and present danger statewide (apparently not, according to this report)? If it is not, why continue the statewide lockdown?
There are many, many potential causes of death in this world and in our state. Does it seem to you like our representatives are currently operating like they have a well thought-out paradigm for deciding which ones are worth shutting down the state for?
Two Glimmers Of Hope
One firm that I believe is heading in the right direction, feet firmly on the ground, head securely screwed on, is Navigo. I learned about Navigo through the “CrossPolitic” podcast. Their Covid risk and vulnerability assessment helped put my wife and my mind at ease with regard to our fear about infection, and the attendant dangers of being infected. As it turns out, even our immunocompromised son is at a very low risk of Covid’s terrible effects (N.B. if you think this means we are being careless with his health, first of all, shame on you, and second of all, go back and reread the first paragraph in this essay. We’re not.)
Navigo is coming up with individualized and contextualized plans for each state to reopen their economies. They really are doing some amazing things. Check them out here if you feel inclined.
Another glimmer of hope I see is that, in spite of all the craziness—nay, this is very likely because of the craziness—people are talking about spiritual revival (even the Wall Street Journal is talking about it). I have personally had conversations with multiple Christian men who tell how being stuck at home is strengthening their relationships with their families and with God. Believers are inviting their non-Christian friends to watch “church online” with them.
The terms “Jesus,” “Bible” and “God” all hit their 22-month peaks on Google in April. We might all be homebound, but as the Apostle said long ago, “the word of God is not bound” (2 Tm 2:9).
Final Thoughts
I sincerely hope you have not read this and concluded that I am in favor of a total and immediate restart to the economy. I am not. I hope that you have not understood me to say that I do not care about the medically vulnerable. I do. I hope that you have not gotten the message that I think it is more important to sit and work in my favorite cafe than it is to keep Granny alive.
Perish that thought immediately.
Instead, I hope that you see that I, like many Illinoisians and Americans, am deeply concerned for the health and well-being of all my neighbors, from the healthy to the sick, from the work-at-home types, to those in authority, to those the authorities have labeled “non-essential.” I remain fully confident that Jesus Christ is sovereign over this (Mt 28:18), and that God is working this for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose (Ro 8:28-29).
We will get through this, but what kind of state (and nation) we will be, when we emerge, will depend on the prudent, sound and again, biblically-wise decisions we make right now.
I believe in God, I respect and submit to the state government, even when I disagree, and I maintain faith in the ability of a well-equipped citizenry to govern itself and make safe decisions for their health, households and livelihoods, when they have the liberty and the information to do so.
Till this whole thing is over, however it is affecting you, “I pray that you are prospering in every way and are in good health, just as your whole life is going well” (3 Jn 1:2), and that “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus” (Ph 4:6-7).
And please, if you found this article on social media, keep your comments civil, respectful and kind.