First, do no harm … to the children

In 1973, Ursula Le Guin wrote “The Ones Who Walk Away from The Omelas,” which has subsequently become one of the most famous science fiction short stories of all time. Le Guin tells the story about a vibrant society where everyone is engaged in creative work, they have high-speed trains, and farmers markets with plenty of food. Oh, and they take a lot of miracle drugs that spiritually enlighten them and allow them to indulge in sensual pleasure “beyond all belief.”

There’s one catch: The Omelas’ “happiness, the beauty of their city” is entirely dependent on torturing a small child by locking him or her away in a small, dark room, totally isolated from human contact. The torture of the child is no secret—everyone knows. The point of the story is to ask whether you could live in such a society. Would you let your comfort be dependent on the suffering of children?

After two years of dealing with COVID-19, the answer to that question from a great many Americans appears to be a resounding “Yes.” Of course, I’m not arguing that COVID restrictions are tantamount to child torture, but Le Guin’s story serves as a metaphor for our times. Consider this: A CNN poll found that 64 percent of parents with children under the age of 18 said it was time for us to learn to live with the disease, while 54 percent of those without kids believed that efforts to stop the spread of COVID must be our top priority, not the needs of kids.

In other words, plenty of people without children are happy to let children suffer if they believe it will keep them safe. And the operative word here is “believe”—at this point we know quite definitively that masking and other COVID restrictions in schools have had a dramatic and damaging effect on education, while simultaneously providing little to no benefit for containing the disease.

Yet, we still routinely see people willing to lie to justify their fears, even when it means punishing kids. MSNBC recently had Eric Feigl-Ding, a doctor who is best known for outrageous COVID doomsaying, telling viewers, “We know that with Omicron it’s actually more severe in children than in adults.” A recent tweet from the Baltimore Teachers Union, which represents educators at some of the worst public schools in America, touted the claim that “Face masks keep kids safe from COVID-19 and keep schools open. There’s no evidence they harm kids developmentally.”

The facts are pretty clear at this point—your child is more likely to die from a garden variety flu than COVID, and there’s a mountain of evidence showing that masks harm child development, especially in kids that have learning disabilities or speech issues. Somehow the “fact-checkers” and disinformation police are uninterested in calling out such egregious statements, even though there are now strong, scientific arguments the COVID fearmongers have done as much or more harm as the COVID denialists.

Even now, Democratic governors, afraid their party is going to get clobbered in the midterm elections this fall, are finally dropping mandatory mask requirements for adults but are still keeping mask mandates in place for schools. There are a lot of nakedly political reasons for this, starting with the fact that teachers unions are one of the Democratic Party’s biggest financial supporters. However, something more ominous is going on.

When political scientist Yascha Mounk recently suggested that we end our “pandemic purgatory” by allowing children to take off masks and “resume playdates and dinner parties without guilt,” progressive activist David Waldman raised a telling objection. According to Waldman, the guilt regarding COVID is merited because “guilt, over something like this, comes from the nagging feeling … that you’re not right.” No evidence was offered. Suffice to say, employing guilt as a tool of control while offering no off-ramps or guidelines for when we can stop worrying is just the secular and more virulent version of puritanical zealotry.

Le Guin’s moral vision is bleak, but “The Ones Who Walk Away from The Omelas”does offer some hope. The story ends by observing that some people simply can’t live in a society that places their own needs over those of children, despite the comfort and well-being it affords them.

Maybe the path ahead will still involve some prudent public health measures, but we’ve been dealing with this terrible disease for nearly two years. We have a good idea of the risks it poses, but there are also real risks involved in many of the policies pushed by the COVID police. And for the sake of our kids, it’s time to walk away from those who would justify irrational fears by harming children.