Thread by @JasonKander

This somewhat prevalent “social distancing = weakness” take on #COVID19 reminds me of a story.

For three weeks in October 2002, a sniper terrorized the greater D.C. metro, murdering civilians who were guilty of nothing other than going about their lives:

Carrying groceries to their car, sitting on a park bench, or mowing their yard. These victims were chosen at random.
 
At the time, I was a Georgetown student and an Army ROTC Cadet.

Local officials – as well as University leaders – were unified in their message to the public: “If we stop going out and spending money, the terrorists win.”

It was simply uncool to admit you didn’t want to go out for lunch, walk across an open campus, or drive to work.

Then, at the conclusion of a morning ROTC training session, one of my instructors offered a “safety brief.”

He was a tall, grizzled Sargent First Class with a combat patch, which was rare in those early days post-911.

“I know all these civilians keep saying to go about your daily lives so the terrorists don’t win, but that’s [flipping] stupid,” he growled. “There’s a damn sniper out there shooting people!”

“I’ve been shot at by snipers, and I’m standing here because I didn’t walk around like some kind of idiot pretending there was no sniper.”
 
“The terrorists aren’t winning because you stay home, Cadets,” he continued.

“The terrorists are winning because snipers are always winning until you find them and kill them. Until the good guys find these guys and take them out, be smart, and don’t go outside.”

I followed his orders, and I’ve thought about that short “safety brief” often since.

And I’ve been thinking about it a lot these past few weeks as I’ve watched the President and several others in the highest levels of leadership lack the courage to tell Americans the truth about this situation, as well as the way many fellow citizens are refusing to stay home.

The American personality tends toward defiance, and in times of crisis or massive disruption, we exhibit an instinctual cultural response along the lines of, “I’m not going to let this event change the way I do things.”
 
Political “leadership” too often defers to this instinct.

Leaders fear being seen as “overreacting” while citizens fear being seen by their peers as fearful.

In the case of a global pandemic, we should reject this reluctance and give in to the temptation toward urgency. Urgency is what we need.

For fear of hurting the economy, most local, state and federal officials will seek to be as minimally disruptive as possible for as long as possible. In my view, that is a mistake.

As one expert recently put it, this pandemic has the possibility of hitting 1918 levels, meaning that while not everyone will die, everyone will know someone who does.

Everything we do right now should be about avoiding such a scenario.

Perhaps this crisis will turn out to be overblown and I’ll look alarmist for having authored this thread. I sincerely hope that to be the case.
 
Ideally, after a slow start, we will now respond so swiftly that we’ll never know the degree to which the response prevented disaster.

I regard a massive preventative response to coronavirus the way I regarded the backup weapon I carried while I was an Army intelligence officer in Afghanistan:

I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Let’s support public officials who prioritize public health above all else. And - in the absence of real leadership at the top - let’s make it cool to stay home.

Remember, when there’s a sniper out there, you can’t defeat the sniper by pretending they don’t exist.