Although I can understand the analogy of the light bulb and the laser to a certain point, here is an analogy that works better for me in the current situation: You live in a house with a very dark basement, lit by a single 25-watt bulb that has grown dimmer over time. Your landlord has employed you to work on various projects in the basement, and insists that the light bulb not be changed. As your eyes grow accustomed to the dimly lit basement, you are able to avoid furniture and boxes to carry out the work. Then another tenant moves in, and randomly stores a lot of his stuff in the basement. Unfortunately, his belongings include a variety of sharp objects that could injure or even kill you if you fall against them. The landlord insists that there is not a problem and orders you to continue your work as before. A little while later, a scientist working with modern technology comes on the scene and starts illuminating the dangerous areas with a 100-watt light. This makes the landlord look bad, so he gets out his trusty pea-shooter and shoots out the brighter light bulb. But more and more scientists start bringing 100-watt bulbs to the house. The landlord locks them out of the house and orders you to continue working in the dimly lit basement. In contrast with events in the national arena, I am very grateful that the Church is led by a man who not only listens closely to the Lord, but whose life included years of training as a skilled medical professional before he was called to full-time ministry. President Nelson was well prepared to see the pandemic coming and took immediate action to protect the lives of the people he serves. After shutting down meetings for a time, he has directed us in carefully re-opening our buildings in a way that will continue to protect the most vulnerable among us. We may have to accept the fact that our lives might never return the "normal" we once knew, but led by an inspired prophet we can walk with him into a much brighter future.
I'm with Kate. It is obvious that using the 25-watt bulb that we have nowhere near enough restrictions - as witness the 1918 flu pandemic, which was much worse when restrictions were lifted too early. The states which refused to put restrictions in place are now reaping the rewards of insufficient controls - and you will note that the Prophet closed down a world-wide Church before most states were closed down. He is not only the mouthpiece of the Lord but a physician and surgeon - and is being VERY cautious about reopening.
I really appreciate Kate’s remarks. You basically said what I was thinking.
I wonder if the author of this article knows anyone personally who has lost their life and/or has been hospitalized and ventilated. Hmmm...if so, maybe his opinion would be different.
While perhaps well intended, this reads as nakedly political...
Great logical diagnosis of the "disease" with which our country has been inflicted. If I followed the rules of many of our leaders right now (I live in Oregon), I would demand that my son and his family immediately stop driving to visit us and, instead, go to a hotel and wait until we both know the traffic flow is so minimal that his odds of having an accident are reduced to what they were 100 years ago. As the author points out, we live with risk every day. Instead, we move forward and have faith that if something bad happens we can deal with it. The alternative is to give up on living.
Very much appreciated article, with an excellent summary of what has transpired and what needs to change. Thank you.
Sounds like good common sense to me... thank you for thinking about this mess we have gotten ourselves into and sorting out real possibilities.... personally I am extremely tired of the new “stupid”.
So if only 1% of the population dies of Covid-19, and the population of the US is about 300.3 million people, that means 3.2 MILLION people dead (not counting all those hospitalized who survive, all those who survive with permanent heart, lung, or neurological damage--that would be many times that 3.2 million). Is that acceptable to you? Don't you think that would affect the economy in a profoundly negative manner? Sounds like a dim bulb idea to me.
This an excellent, well-written article, describing the situation in which we now find ourselves. The author raises excellent questions deserving of answers. This has given me much to ponder. I am very grateful to Carl Herstein for expressing in a clear and relevant manner, issues troubling each of us. If we are not troubled by our current circumstances and loss of freedoms, we should be.
Thank you for adding light to a darkened subject. I appreciate your insight and wisdom and agree with you totally.
Thank you for this very well thought out article. I appreciate and admire your courage for putting it out there.
Excellent, well put and spot on!
Exceptional piece of work.
Excellent, balanced perspective, useful analogy, and wise counsel. Thank you.
You have touched on significant facts. Returning to normal is critical for the survival of our democratic republics. We have many other problems that create more deaths than COVID-19. We need to get back to common sense.
THANK YOU for finally saying succinctly what I have believed from the onset of this so called Pandemic. Our lives are frought with risks from the time we wake until we sleep; Oh wait, the risks continue even while we sleep. This is life on planet Earth. Can we all agree that there are more or less risks in every breath we take and every step we make? Let's get on with the business of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! We all will find our way in this sometimes dim lit world.
You are right on. Somewhere we let common sense leave the room. Responsibility for self is required. Local governments exercised control never before seen. Let’s not for get to vote. Unfortunately, election year politics have muddy’d the water.
The author conclusion, “ The goals need to be specific, numerical targets. As every business student has learned ‘You can’t manage what you can’t measure.’ The public needs to know and agree on what those who have taken over the management of our lives are using as the test (articulated in specific and understandable language), for when it is necessary for us to cede control over our political institutions, our laws, and our lives.” Is so ambiguous and equivocal that it is worthless.
He complains that elected officials have taken over our lives by their decision making, but then suggests that we as a public need to “know and agree” on what the elected officials are using as a test. Is he proposing that before any government official makes a decision in a crisis situation that we hold a special ballot to vote on whether to go ahead with the official’s proposed measures? How does that work if we are suddenly attacked by foreign military forces? Should we hold up retaliation waiting for proposals “articulated in specific and understandable language” are presented and we then vote on them?
The idea is so absurd as to be laughable.
We vote to elect our political representatives, if we actually exercise our right to vote. And yes they represent us whether we like them or not and whether we voted for them or not. But the idea of each time their is a major decision to be made that the country has to come to a halt so that we can be especially informed is nonsensical. What constitutes a major decision necessitating this type of action? Or is it just necessary when the decision making doesn’t align with the author’s opinion?
This would essentially be proposing that we as a people vote on every single decision that lawmakers face. How’s that going to work?
No we vote every and vote regularly for those who represent us, and if we don’t like their decision making then we need to do what we can to vote them out.
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.