Something has been bothering me, relating to the human experience and civil society and due process during the pandemic. And I’ve had trouble putting it into words for a while.

Then I read this story, about a teenager in Illinois. /14 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/illinois-mother-sues-governor-after-son-struggling-pandemic-dies-suicide-n1256190

His life was upended when high school sports were shut down and all the activities he was involved in were shut down, too. He graduated and started college via Zoom. Atomized. He killed himself. 2/14

Obviously this is sad. But there’s a faith that the sacrifices we’ve been asked to make are necessary. That there are no good options, and that in an out-of-control pandemic this is just “what needs to be done.”

I wanted to believe it, too. That there was a reason. 3/14

“‘Illinois is no better off than any of these other states that haven't closed or that have been allowing activities,’ she said.”

Illinois has no fewer deaths from covid per capita than Iowa next door. Despite its youth being significantly more restricted for nearly a year. 4/14

The state even peaks at the same time as its red state neighbors, the ones who didn’t target extensive, prolonged social restrictions at children and young adults.

We’ve rationalized all the sacrifices so many have made as “necessary.” But they weren’t. Not really. 5/14

It’s hard to swallow that much of this, pushing prolonged isolation and atomization onto youth, was done for no tangible benefit. That it was effectively self-flagellation.

The type of restrictions pursued by states like Illinois didn’t even deliver “better results.” 6/14

The only success of many of these restrictions was as a communications tool. Leaders signaling to a scared base that they were making “tough choices” and “taking this thing seriously.”

Which, fine... if they didn’t cause such enormous harms. But they did, and are. 7/14

Restrictions on youth have never been implemented for this length, at this scale, ever. This is entirely revolutionary, experimental. (Really. I wanted to believe there was precedent, too.)

Isn’t the burden of proof to show that these policies accomplish what they intend? 8/14

There was, maybe unsurprisingly, no cost/benefit analysis offered as a brand new state of emergency. (We were shooting from the hip against a novel virus, failed by federal leadership!)

But even now, ten+ months later, surely we can point to some sort of formal evaluation? 9/14

In Illinois and elsewhere, there has been no comprehensive analysis offered of these policies. None at all.

If a city wanted to, say, remove 300 trees in a public park, they would procedurally and publicly provide a cost/benefit analysis.

(h/t @LucioMM1) 10/14

That our restrictions framework has never been rigorously defended is incomprehensible to me.

Knowing the enormous harms we’ve caused, we’ve still just taken it on faith that the sacrifices we are being asked to make “must” be necessary. 11/14

We can’t close the book on this, of course, until the pandemic is over.

But when this is all said and done, there is a very real possibility—it’s likely, even—that in many places, enormous burdens were shouldered by many for no reason. 12/14

There’s is a very real possibility that he didn’t have to die.

And not only did he not have to die, but that our governance structure got *this far into implementing the pandemic response framework that contributed to killing him* without even having to defend itself. 13/14

Thanks to @ComradeDoom86 for initially sharing this article and encouraging me to think about why, exactly, it upset me so much. 14/14 https://twitter.com/comradedoom86/status/1355378156291538944