Coronavirus will damage public perception of individualism

The argument

China, Japan, South Korea have all responded very forcefully to the spread of coronavirus. Western societies, more concerned with protecting individual freedom, look strikingly less prepared, and the gap shows up in the most basic measure of a response. South Korea has done 3,500 tests per million of its population. The US has done five tests per million of its population. Whatever else separates those two figures, they will be read as a comparison between two ways of organising a society under pressure — one willing to act on the population as a whole, the other reluctant to. Individualism's brand will suffer as a result, and the argument for a collective approach to well-being will be bolstered accordingly. In the UK and US, there is an overwhelming concern expressed towards protecting individuals' businesses and livelihoods as opposed to confronting the direct health threat of COVID-19, and that ordering of priorities is itself a philosophical commitment rather than a technical judgement. This is precisely why many states within America even refused to go on lockdown and rather just encouraged individual self-containment: a response that treats containment as a matter of private choice follows directly from a politics that treats the individual as the unit that matters. While the ethics of such decisions are not the primary focus of this argument, the claim here is about consequence rather than merit. On a global scale, a contrast this visible does have the potential to damage the philosophy of individualism, regardless of whether the philosophy is being judged fairly by it. People might likely conclude that in the context of unprecedented times or catastrophic events, the government should more so focus on what is beneficial for society as a whole than on preserving each person's freedom to decide for themselves. A shift in public perception of that kind is how coronavirus would reshape global politics.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Individualism will not have a negative association following COVID-19. While facing such unprecedented times, most governments failed to make effective decisions. Due to a lack of data and uncertainty, governments, all around the world, acted too late or in an insufficient manner. However, society's abilities to continue battling the virus were mostly empowered by individualistic efforts. Doctors, nurses, and all medical staff made a personal and individualistic commitment to work extra hours and provide care and treatment for patients. People began sewing masks and donating food and water to homeless shelters. Countless individuals and private organizations began to provide mental health support and created jobs unique to the pandemic atmosphere. These individualistic commitments and efforts were driving the fight against the pandemic. No statewide law or governmental effort or society-mandated movement could have accomplished this.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Early testing rates reflect laboratory capacity, prior experience of respiratory epidemics and the timing of a country's first cases at least as much as political philosophy, and the argument does not separate these from the factor it wants to isolate. [Rejecting P2] Weighing livelihoods against transmission was a trade-off every government faced. Describing one side of it as individualism assumes the characterisation the argument is supposed to establish. [Rejecting P3] What people "may conclude" is a forecast, and the counter-argument makes the opposite one — that the response leaned heavily on individual initiative by medical staff and volunteers, which would strengthen rather than damage the standing of the philosophy.