Thread by @Yascha_Mounk

At the beginning of the pandemic, I advocated serious forms of social distancing.

But the reasons that justified extraordinary government restrictions on our lives back then no longer hold.

It is time to drop many of them.

My latest @TheAtlantic

🧵.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

Last year’s lockdowns, and the restrictions we've lived with since, had two primary purposes:

• To stop hospitals from getting overwhelmed by “flattening the curve”

• To buy the time to put in place a test-trace-and-isolate system that would stop community transmission.

We’ve (mostly) accomplished the first goal in the past 12 months. The health system did not break down.

Now, ICU occupancy stands at 70% nationwide. Flu season is over. Nearly half of Americans have one shot of the vaccine.

Hospitals won’t be overstretched anytime soon.

We never came close to accomplishing the second goal.

There was never a serious attempt to eradicate the virus. We still don’t have a serious system to test-trace-and-isolate.

Community transmission will continue until we reach herd immunity.

What intrusions into the lives of Americans are still legitimate even though their original justifications have weakened or disappeared?

Four broad principles can help answer that question.

1. Restricting Fundamental Rights Requires Extraordinary Reasons

Last year's threat was extreme enough to justify brief restrictions of basic liberties.

Now, it no longer is. Restrictions on fundamental freedoms like the right to worship or assemble are no longer justifiable.

2. Resist the Status-Quo Bias

Once a policy is in place, governments are more willing to tolerate its downsides.

Last year, the status-quo bias made governments too reluctant to impose restrictions. Now, it’s tempting them to sustain restrictions that are no longer justified.

We should be especially skeptical when governments come up with new reasons for old restrictions.

Some now argue the state can restrict basic rights whenever some lives are at stake. But that would provide an excuse for curtailing fundamental freedoms at just about any juncture.

3. Focus on What You Can Achieve Without Restricting Fundamental Rights

Governments can do a lot of good without interfering with basic rights—like mask mandates and enhanced safety protocols for gyms. States can keep such rules in place until case numbers decline significantly.

4. Trust Your Citizens

The debate about which restrictions to lift has almost entirely focused on what the state should command its citizens to do or not to do.

But state authorities can also encourage their citizens to do the right thing.

It's time to encourage, not command.

This helps to resolve the debate over “vaccine passports.”

The government should give different guidance to those who are vaccinated than to those who are not.

But that doesn’t mean it has to be able to enforce that guidance by means of punishments or an official document.

So what’s the upshot?

Keep sensible mask mandates in place. Make stricter rules about ventilation. Focus on less intrusive policies that make a big difference.

And finally lift nearly all of the restrictions that do represent a fundamental imposition on the rights of citizens.

Let’s stop pretending the rules that made sense in April 2020 still make sense in April 2021—and lift those restrictions that no longer have a compelling justification.

Please read and share the article @TheAtlantic.

And let me know what you think 👇

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

Also, a big thank you to my great editor @julietlapidos.

The first draft of this piece was a half-baked mess. She kept pushing me to make the piece more ambitious with imperturbable patience.

If people listen to my advice and it all goes terribly wrong, she's the one to blame.