It has been seven months since we began our collective efforts as a nation to “flatten the curve” of the deadly virus known as NCOV-SARS2, the pathogen responsible for the illness COVID-19. And I think all reasonable people will admit that while the initially-requested 15-days wound up being a mild underestimate, the fact that we have only suffered 224,000 deaths clearly indicates that the lockdowns, mask-mandates, and cultural programs to encourage social distancing have been a massive success.
But to anyone who has spent some time educating themselves about the science behind COVID-19, it should be clear that masks and social distancing will not be sufficient to protect ourselves from this disease. In fact, there is a good chance that we may even face a more severe Flu/COVID season this winter precisely because of certain measures taken during the Summer months, when the body’s immune system is strongest and the opportunity to develop herd-immunity with the least amount of deaths is highest.
Fortunately, however, the precedent set by our current lockdowns, setting general safety over constitutional limitations of power, gives us as a nation a unique opportunity to take radical action not only to reduce our COVID death-count, but to proactively protect our nation and our economy from all variety of diseases and health-dangers.
We can require mandatory gym-memberships.
Schroder et all. have found a significant correlational relationship between fitness club membership and increased cardiovascular health and reduced waist-circumference. Given the deadly relationship between obesity and COVID-19, and the fact that obesity on its own kills around 300,000 Americans every year, the institution of mandatory gym-memberships may in fact prove more effective in our fight with this pandemic and with epidemics in general than all of the measures we have instituted to this point combined.
Needless to say, the mandates need not stop here. Numerous studies have confirmed that adequate levels of vitamin-D severely reduce negative outcomes in COVID-19 cases. In fact, sunlight’s positive effects on the immune system and on the body more generally are increasingly common knowledge. As our willingness to impose mandates on individual behavior strengthens, it seems clear that mandatory sunbathing may be in order after mandatory gym-memberships.
The beneficial effects of these policies are not limited to disease-prevention either.
America currently sits at an all-time low in fertility. According to US News, the average American couple has 1.71 children, which is well below the population-replacement standard of 2.1. Assuming that fertility has anything to do with physical attraction (anecdotal evidence strongly suggests a correlation), then a general increase in physical fitness and sun-tanning may be reasonably expected to correct this downward trend in fertility, which is generally associated with a decline in economic production and increased stress on social programs geared towards ensuring the security of our elderly. As it stands, America currently sits at an all-time low in frequency of sex, and there is reason to believe that decreased levels of overall fitness and reduced sunlight exposure may have some relationship with this trend.
It goes without saying that such a program of mandatory gym membership and sunlight is not without its own risks. There is reason to believe that increased immune health, general health, and physical fitness is associated with increased levels of self-confidence, discipline, and optimism in relation to the future. Such a general attitude may result in a decreased reliance upon governmental mandates. A policy of this kind might depend upon the self-awareness of the general population, and a public recognition of the relationship between these mandates and their own health, which may not have existed in prior COVID-related mandates. Given the current acceptance of broadly ineffective mandates, there is little reason to fear an immediate backlash, but should policy-makers proceed with such a program, we recommend that social media logs and private communication be monitored for signs of disagreement, and that online influencers who show indications of resistance be removed from their spheres of influence as quickly and quietly as possible. Current programs demonstrate the effectiveness of such an approach, and there is no current history of significant counter-movements against censorship of this kind. It may even be possible to have feed-procuring services redirect ordinary viewers of subversive information of this kind to more moderating channels (e.g., instead of MSNBC, viewers might have The Golden One featured in the sidebar).
In conclusion, we commend the current mandates, especially for what they have shown to be possible in the legal response to the NCOV-SARS2 virus and for the promotion of health more generally. Naturally, this proposition is made on the assumption that health and security are, in fact, the purposes of these mandates, and that they are not means to some less publicly-known end. If the latter is the case, then naturally this proposition should be disregarded, and a program of social isolation, destabilization, and polarization should be instituted in its place.