Kim 1
Faith Kim
Professor Teresa Cheatham
English 103
25 February 2022
The True Pandemic of Selfishness
946,000. That’s the present number of COVID-19 related deaths in the United States
alone. Without doubt, many of those deaths could have been preventable or stopped, if not for
the carelessness and recklessness of many. The federal lockdown, which began in the early
months of 2020, was initially accepted by the majority, as COVID-19 was viewed with
seriousness and caution, as many feared this unknown virus. However, as months went by, it was
only inevitable that society and the economy began to feel the effects of the lockdown. Those
who sided with the lockdown argued for its policies to be upheld and in some cases,
strengthened, as COVID-19 began to make its imminent downfall onto American soil. However,
those that opposed it argued that there were issues that were much more crucial and devastating
than the virus itself. Whether it be of concern for the economy, mental well being, or simply the
dissatisfaction of discrepancy for their everyday lives, these people argued against the federal
lockdown in one way or another. In this argument for the validity of the federal issued lockdown,
it is without doubt that not only is it needed, but is imperative that it must be upheld.
As one of the largest motivators for those who oppose the lockdown, the concern for
America’s economic status has driven many to protest federal authority. Rosie, a florist in Cool,
California, states that her floral business has been on the decline since the pandemic. Her
husband further states, “Half of the business are broke, or they’re out of business” (“American”).
Kim 2
This claim further is argued by many stating that the lockdown prevents individuals from going
out and supporting businesses around the country, yet this point is contradicting in itself. The
lockdown was put into place in order to save and protect the lives of people. In turn, removing
such mandates would result in the loss of lives- and do those same lives have no role in our
country’s economy as well? Aside from the 946,000 COVID-19 related deaths in the US, that
same whopping statistic is paired with a staggering 78.8 million cases of COVID infected
patients. Of these 78.8 million people, many have been left with irreversible health effects,
significant medical deterioration, or even lifetime hindrances to their wellbeing. Rosie stated that
her husband is the one who assists her with delivering flowers from her business, yet her
husband elaborates that he actually has an underlying heart condition- one that makes wearing a
mask difficult. However, it can be argued that although the lockdown may be hurting Rosie’s
business, in the case that her husband was to contract COVID-19 from external exposure, would
that not be a larger impact to her business? Those who claim to suffer from the economic
repercussions of the pandemic fail to realize that such lockdowns are protecting the most
important and irreplaceable asset to life- human lives. Furthermore, many economic burdens held
by America presently are simply the result of an extended lockdown period that could have been
avoided if citizens abided proactively from the beginning. Although unsustainable in the long
run, the government has and is willing to make the means of providing for those who could be
potentially affected by the lockdown in an economical sense, as shown with the distribution of
stimulus checks throughout the months during the lockdown. For example, President Joe Biden
passed a bill through Congress which provides $1,400 payments to most Americans, which in
turn helps the unemployed and those who struggle to keep businesses and the economy alive
(Sebastian Smith). This was one of many previous stimulus checks that were issued by the
Kim 3
government, which was proof that even at a time of economic standstill, they are still capable of
supporting its citizens. However, such a solution is only temporary, and cannot be upheld for a
long amount of time. Abiding by the lockdown is logically going to impact businesses and create
economical loss, yet there is a midpoint of time at which the government can support and stand
against any economical strain resulting from a lockdown, and the virus could be contained
through the isolation and lockdown of facilities. Yet if people continue to restrain and resist
lockdowns mandated by the government, COVID-19 cases will only rise, resulting in need for an
extended lockdown- which at that point, would be far from the breaking point at which the
government would have been able to financially protect and brace itself with. Resisting
lockdowns and choosing to ignore the threats of COVID-19 have proven to only worsen cases
and breakouts, which in such cases, simply remaining under lockdowns would have been much
more effective and have less negative impacts.
Cary Gordon, a senior pastor at Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City Iowa stated
his dissatisfaction at the lockdown claiming, “...The church is not essential. In a time of crisis
with imminent death and a pandemic, the church is not essential, but Menards can stay open,
someone might need to buy a screwdriver. It's offensive (“American”). This brings up another
facet of arguments brought up by those who oppose the lockdown mandate- what defines
essential, and who decides such things? There have been numerous cases in which the church
and government have been at odds-whether it is for legal reasons or ethical, the fine line between
offensive and protective have been at ends with governmental regulations and the church.
However, with the current case of the COVID-19 pandemic, it can be said that simply refusing to
abide by governmental legislation would be selfish. In the matter of the lockdown, many people
failed to realize that the lockdown was to be a temporary solution- one that could perhaps be
Kim 4
used one can and never mandated again, However, at the selfishness of many, the lockdown
ended up becoming an issue that was extended over a longer period of time. By upholding the
lockdown status within the country, it should not be viewed as an act of blasphemy or prejudice
to the church, rather, it could be taken as a step to protect the lives of those who engage in it.
Furthermore, the advancement of technology has made it possible to offer services remotely such
as church services, which of course, cannot replicate the same feeling and role of in person
activities. However, the question then should be asked- wouldn’t a temporary lockdown be much
more favorable as opposed to the risk of losing a life which takes away the chance of any
gathering at all? Although a grim conclusion, the risk of losing a life is much more of a loss than
missing activities and gatherings. In terms of the economical effects of the church, those who
gather at the church may claim to “have no fear of death” which of course, could be applied to
one’s mindset individually. However, if that same person was to contract COVID at such a
gathering and spread it to someone else who had no part in any larger gatherings, why should
another person suffer from the repercussions of another’s choice? That same person would have
been another person working a job, providing for a family, and bringing in income and in turn,
supporting the country’s economy. Although it may be sinister to refer to one as a statistic or
number, vast cases of people losing lives is exponentially more detrimental than going a few
weeks without a social gathering.
Amy Garner, a mother who lost her brother to suicide as a result of depression triggered
from a failed business, claims that the shutdown of everyday life would lead to more cases
mirroring her late brother’s. “I wanted to save other families from going through what we went
through.. Sorry. So that's why I became so passionate about not shutting things down, letting
people choose (“American”). Her argument stems from the fact that losing her brother to a
Kim 5
failing business caused pain and suffering from her end, and the lockdown mandates further
contribute to creating more environments in people where a similar situation may occur. Of
course, the loss of anyone’s life is one to be grieved, and it cannot be argued that any loss of life
is acceptable or necessary. However, in the face of a global pandemic, pleasing both sides and
keeping everyone happy is unattainable. To those arguing against the lockdown, opening up the
economy in people’s eyes means that businesses can stay open and continue sustaining life.
However, removing the lockdown opens up two simultaneous doors. The first of which is the one
that anti-lockdown individuals hold high and fight for- the opening of businesses allows for
people to continue making revenue, keep livelihoods, and remain favorable for the mental health
of people, especially those who fear isolation. However, hand in hand with this opening of life
leads to the inevitable interaction of people once more, which in a pandemic, only leads to the
increase of spreading of disease and contraction. Is the loss of life from COVID-19 not of the
same value as the potential loss of life from being shut down and put in lockdown? The value of
one’s life is as valuable as another’s regardless of how they lived their lives. Yet in the face of
this unknown pandemic with little to no research, it would be simply unwise to take the side of
normalcy; being oblivious and fabricating a false sense of security in such a time of crisis. A
medical article written by the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science states, “Social
distancing, which emerged as one of the mainstay strategies for reducing the spread of
SARS-CoV-2, has presented a challenge to the traditional model of clinical trial conduct, causing
many research teams to halt all in-person contacts except for life-saving research” (Tammy L
Loucks). To continue with everyday life normally despite being in an abnormal situation is
simply foolish, as even researchers are having a difficult time simply trying to research
COVID-19 as a whole. Hence, until research about the virus is conducted and conclusions are
Kim 6
made, people should remain under lockdown, even at the smaller cost of a potential economic
loss. Yes, keeping the mental health of others is important and yes, supporting small businesses
at a time of economic recession is equally important as well. Yet if the cost of attaining those two
things is in the exchange of losing even more lives to exposure from COVID-19, who are you
really helping at all?
The main opposition argument that is presented from those who are resisting the
lockdown is that the economy is blatantly putting itself at risk by forcing healthy, able-bodied
people to stay at home and remain out of the workforce. However, this point is a contradiction
within itself- the lockdown is meant to be a way to protect those same able bodied people while
the virus passes; what good is it if those in the workforce contract COVID-19? A study
conducted by Ritsu Kitagawa under the study of COVID-19 and its impacts of those who
precipitated in WFH (work from home) states, “ The positive association between WFH and
mental health, which is not in line with some early works on the effect of COVID-19 on mental
health, may come from two factors: (1) the movement and social life were less restricted in Japan
during the pandemic; and (2) WFH was not mandated so that only organizations that can allow
and provide support for WFH actually implemented it (Gale in Context, Kitagawa Ritsu). With
this outside view, it is apparent that WFH or simply the locking down of businesses temporarily
is not something that needs to be viewed as detrimental. Further, the lockdown periods at which
people would have to remain indoors would be shorter the better people adhere to it, as resisting
the lockdown doesn’t eliminate the need for them completely, it only increases the amount of
time it needs to be amended. In the case that a healthy person was to resist the lockdown, go out
and work, contract COVID-19 and end up losing their life, wouldn’t the loss of that life be more
detrimental than a mere few months in isolation? In the goal of wanting to shelter the economy
Kim 7
and ensure that it stays strong, those who protest the mandate fail to realize that the mandate
itself is what is protecting able-bodied workers the best.
As the debate between those who support the lockdown and those who resist it continues
to go on, the number of COVID-19 cases only continue to climb higher. America is a country
who runs with the power of the people, utilizing its workforce to continue to turn the wheels of
advancement and capitalism. Nothing stood in its way, until the beginning of the outbreak of
COVID, and the immediate response by the government to issue a shutdown was met with much
opposition and criticism. However, it is irrefutable that such a lockdown is needed, even with the
consideration of the potential economical drawbacks. The lockdown will of course stunt
economic growth in a short period of time, yet that economical stun is little in comparison to the
potential detrimental effects of ignoring the threat of COVID. It simply boils down to the fact
that the risk of continuing everyday life is nothing in comparison to the result of the larger loss of
life. Although at this present point in time, it is clear that the failed unanimous adoption of
lockdowns through the country has shown its negative effects, the prioritization of the country’s
economy at the expense of human lives is simply appalling. Furthermore, it is those same human
lives that are needed to preserve the economy, so by risking those lives, who and what do you
expect the country to run off on? Therefore, it has been made clear that the lockdown of the
country must be upheld, as the economical consequences from resisting it are far, far greater.
946,000. As this number continues to climb and claim lives that otherwise could have been
protected, is the economical inconvenience of the lockdown truly more valuable than the
priceless value of human life? The answer is crystal clear- no, it never has been and it never will.
Economies will recover, regardless of how many weeks, months, or years it takes. Lives lost to
COVID-19, however, can’t and never will.
Kim 8
Works Cited
“American Voices: A Nation in Turmoil.” Frontline.org, 17 Nov. 2020,
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/americanvoices /
Countrywatch.com.cerritoscoll.idm.oclc.org,
countrywatch.com.cerritoscoll.idm.oclc.org/intelligence/countrywirestory?uid=7058382
Go,
go-gale-com.cerritoscoll.idm.oclc.org/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Journals&resultListType=RES
ULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=159&searchType=TopicSearchFor
m&currentPosition=11&docId=GALE|A687760079&docType=Report&sort=Relevance&
contentSegment=ZXAY-MOD1&prodId=OVIC&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE|A6877
60079&topicId=GWJNBB662519872&searchId=R1&userGroupName=cerritos&inPS=tru
e.
Loucks TL;Tyson C;Dorr D;Garovic VD;Hill J;McSwain SD;Radovick S;Sonnenberg FA;Weis
JA;Brady KT; “Clinical Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Virtual
Visits and Digital Approaches.” Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, U.S.
National Library of Medicine, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34192057/.