How to Navigate Office Politics in the USA

It has been infuriating to see folks who answer the cry to "Freedom!" deny that there is any problem worth bothering about. There is nothing small-government about the belief that if there is no problem, the government should do nothing to remedy it. The justification for libertarianism is based on the premise that difficult, important problems require individual effort, creativity, and consensus. Not the assumption that we live in a world free of difficult, important concerns.The polarization of pandemic concerns is so extreme that we can't even agree on what "doing something" and "moving on" look like. Wearing a mask, testing a few times, and working remotely while sick but otherwise returning to normal may qualify as either for the proper person. The inability to agree makes it difficult to be anything but angry with one another.Voluntary replies are good, however they are not adequate.What would have been the libertarian policy response to the pandemic? First and foremost—though some may not consider it a policy response—is considerable voluntary mitigation for the sake of one another, particularly for the most vulnerable.It may appear unrealistic now, but the remarkable solidarity demonstrated in the early days of the pandemic suggests that Canadians had the capacity not so long ago to do on our own what is now considered prudent mitigation: masking in certain scenarios, testing appropriately, and staying at home while sick. We were also willing, not so long ago, to accept that those who can most easily make adjustments should bear the responsibility for those who have fewer options, whether due to socioeconomic or medical factors.

Somewhere along the way, we switched the onus

During lockdowns, people who could continue to work from home or whose childcare or schooling was not disturbed appeared to be more concerned with enacting the appropriate policy response than with those whose lives had been upended. When the lockdowns ended, those who had weathered them successfully felt like they had done their part, but those who had suffered were eager to return to normalcy. People with numerous options are getting "back to normal," while those who cannot take time off work or for whom the virus is the most hazardous feel alone in navigating the ongoing pandemic.If you're more Covid-aware, you've definitely felt the awkwardness of asking someone to behave differently to meet your comfort level. It was never considered courteous to ask what someone is comfortable with, or to conceal or cancel plans even when it was difficult. In a near-universe, it's a mistake to think someone is as calm as you are, and internal sentiments of shame assist keep everyone safe. Mandates can't last forever. However, civility is not only long-lasting, but it also reinforces itself.The near-universe is more humane. We've set too high expectations for governments and too low for ourselves.Second, public health issues should never have become so politicized. When you feel that people can—and will—meaningfully respond to a community problem, it is simpler not to be concerned about the implications of a recommendation to public policy.

N-95 and related masks have always been

the greatest way to protect yourself and others, even when they were in short supply. PCR and molecular testing are useful for determining how many infections are present in the population, but at-home fast testing—a poor method of infection detection—can assist us in testing for infectiousness and deciding what to do. More and continuous voluntary testing and isolation should have always aided public health efforts to better understand the virus. Air quality, exchange, and filtration are important not only for Covid-19, but also for disease prevention in general, even if updating them is costly. Even if we place Plexiglas everywhere, it will not stop Covid-19 from spreading through the air any more than it will keep cigarette smoke in a restaurant's smoking section. Today, public health advice does not try to educate us in making the best informed decisions based on what is realistic for each of us, but rather gives a single guideline of what is considered reasonably informed, driven by government policy. For example, because the government modified public testing rules, Ontario has turned away from supporting repeated at-home testing to promote individual decision-making and now provides advise based on symptoms that are not necessarily related to infectiousness.The division of appropriate public health measures has damaged the unity that drove almost all of us to stay at home and look out for one another early in the pandemic, as well as the effectiveness of what we're doing to battle the virus going forward.

Finally, policies that accelerate the development of vaccine

diagnostics, and therapies whileassuring their safety should have been maintained and should be prioritized at this time. mRNA vaccines are medical marvels that have saved millions of lives. However, they are insufficient for going "back to normal." Keeping people alive and out of hospitals is undoubtedly critical, but it is not sufficient. Even when Covid isn't hazardous, it can be bothersome and unpleasant.We need vaccines that prevent not only serious sickness but also transmission, and we need them as soon as possible. We need better and more widely available treatments to help patients feel better and prevent long-term Covid. And testing should now be less expensive, more accessible, and less invasive. The fact that we don't have these things is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Some individuals will be concerned about the pace of development, but many others will be eager to adopt novel pharmaceutical treatments that provide real-world evidence of their safety and efficacy. Voluntary adoption, combined with less political public health messages, would help depoliticize vaccines and treatment.These are recommendations that libertarians should welcome, but they do not have to be executed in the same way that libertarians would. They would all support and possibly benefit from government policy responses. Paid leave would enable more workers to stay at home when sick. Government-provided testing could help people get back to employment, education, or childcare. Public health might shift its emphasis to messages on gold-standard behavior (with variations based on living circumstances) and the somewhat time-consuming task of reaching those who are skeptical of vaccines and do not have easy access to them.