Liberdade e segurança

No meio de tanta informação científica, às vezes é preciso ouvir quem se treinou a ler o mundo no passado para perceber melhor o que temos pela frente.

"I’m not suggesting that life should simply “go back to normal” and that we should cease to take protective measures, especially for those particularly vulnerable. But the standard of “safety” deserves to be banished or, at the very least, weighed against the notion of compromised liberty. “Safety” is simply not a reasonable goal for a free society. We are not “safe” driving our cars. We are not “safe” from cancer, or stroke, or heart disease, or numerous other killers that strike without any warning. We have vaccines now for various forms of the flu but we are not “safe” from it, given that 30,000 to 60,000 people die from it each year in the United States. There is no reason to believe that a vaccine for COVID-19 will make us “safe.” Some people will not take the vaccine and for others it will be ineffective.

Of course, I support trying to protect those particularly susceptible to harm from this virus, and individuals should take responsible steps to avoid infecting themselves and others. But I am suggesting that trying to achieve actual “safety,” as opposed to simply being prudent, is both impossible and carries with it a huge cost — the loss of our liberty, the loss of our dignity, and the loss of some measure of our sober judgment. Rational individuals understand that virtually every act entails some kind of risk, and we accept those risks every day of our lives. We don’t live as if we are likely to die at any moment (from cancer or a car accident or a gunshot); we live as if we know that the risks inherent in life and liberty are far outweighed by life’s joys and opportunities."