Lifting restrictions on Coronavirus pandemic

Introduction

Towards the end of 2019, the world was plunged into an unprecedented quagmire hitherto not experienced since the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. The Coronavirus, otherwise known as COVID-19, suddenly transcended the national and continental confines to engulf the whole world, primarily driven by international travel and global trade. By the end of the first quarter of 2020, almost all governments in the world moved to lock its borders to international travel and intra-country lockdowns and nighttime curfews. However, the public has been asking for the lifting of these restrictions citing secondary repercussions that had not been taken into consideration initially.

Proponents claim that the restrictions have had an overbearing impact on the global economy, highly dependent on international travel. Countries, especially those dependent on tourism such as the Caribbean countries, wildlife-rich tropical states, and business tourism destinations, have been heavily hit by a drastic drop in new visitors. Eventually, it led to workers’ mass layoffs as they awaited the lockdown to lift, which hasn’t happened so many weeks later. Jobs, business, and other interconnected industries like farming and transport have continued to face unprecedented challenges emanating from the lack of hospitality business.

On the flip side, opening the world to international travel would bring the world to where it all started, considering the threat is still active, and no concrete counter drug or vaccine has been developed yet. In the pandemic’s initial days, many of the countries found themselves in a precarious position of under-preparedness, overwhelmed by an unprecedented spike in patients in need of critical care, not enough PPEs for the healthcare workers and a mostly overwhelmed medical equipment supply system. Add overwhelming demand for household supplies, and the picture gets grimmer.

Proponents also cite that the pandemic might have a lasting impact on consumer behavior. This impact will usher in a new era of new non-traditional ways of commerce, such as a heavy reliance on online-based systems, making physical business establishments such as restaurants, offices, and other public amenities such as transport. This situation would mean a permanent layoff of what has become termed as non-essential workers. Such would lead to a spike in unemployment and a burden to social safety nets such as unemployment benefits. The chain reaction would mean fewer taxes and, eventually, less revenue, despite a spike in its reliance.

Opposers, however, deem it more beneficial to wait it out as a spike in new cases. Infection would still mean a lot of the resources would be allocated to sectors such as health and kill associated industries like insurance. The chain reaction would affect the financial and money markets, a scenario experienced during the 2009 global recession that threatened to crush the world in debt and destabilize the whole world order. It would cost more to prop these particular industries back to performance.

Proponents see that the loss of a whole year of work, school, and many other progressive life elements will take many years to undo. Consequently, free time and effort are pushed to focus on different time bombs that have been bedeviling, such as corruption, social injustice, and other kinds of social priorities. Such has caused outbursts of a breakdown in the social order, leading to riots, protests, and unrest. This situation will continue to be a threat to the maintenance of social order for many governments worldwide.

Not everyone sees that as a bad thing, though. Many systems have been broken even before the pandemic, mainly aggravated by poor policies, corruption, war, and bad foreign policy. It has exposed the rot in the system, and how poor some government priorities have put many nations in the precarious positions they now find themselves. Therefore, they can’t find the connection that many proponents seem to draw parallels from such a link.

By and large, it’s essential to recognize that the global pandemic is still here with us, and we can’t wish it away. Bolting away at this particular point in time, despite the sacrifices already made, would be all for naught. Like many disasters before this, this too will pass. We need the global citizen to hold it together until it does.

A persuasive, argumentative essay should be premised on real-life information, as seen from many angles, and dissected over time. Many aspects need to be included for a wholesome deduction at the end of it all. This information often is what dictates policy and future projection. Appealing to emotion, logic, and earning trust is vital. Not overselling a fact should also be critical as it has the potential to blow up on your face sometimes. It was equally important to consider individual and communal reservations to achieve a middle ground compromise. The end game is to end with an argument that holds water, not be proved right. Being open-minded therefore is key

As a writer, it is essential to have a human look at things to understand the situation better and the impact it may have. Facts and numbers may distract us, but much of the result is often a convolution of numerous dynamics. I was surprised at the many undercurrents that are in play during another nonrelated pandemic. Many might struggle to see them, but proper research and fewer biases can go a long way to paint a more accurate picture of reality.