In the video about coronavirus and the state, I pointed out that the main danger of the epidemic is not in the deaths, nor even in the fact that the state, under the guise of security, is encroaching on freedoms—but in the fact that this encroachment will be welcomed, and after the epidemic ends, many of the introduced restrictions will remain.

And indeed. Mikhail Svetov likes a post stating that in Miami, not a single murder occurred during seven weeks of isolation. Mikhail Pozharsky writes an article about what cannibals the Swedish socialists are for starving their elderly with COVID. And literally almost everyone snorts with disapproval at anyone who admits they are not following the ban on walks or other excursions from home unless for an urgent need.

Yes, if everyone is locked in their homes, there will be fewer killings in the streets. There will be more killings at home. If people are not allowed to go to work, they will not die of pneumonia. They will die of hunger. Any restrictions introduced by the state to save lives have a price, which is expressed not only in money, but in those same lives.

I sincerely hope that the Swedes hold their ground and ultimately do not trade freedom for security. And I also sincerely hope that when all this is over and we count the excess mortality among the Swedes and their neighbors, it turns out that by choosing freedom, the Swedes won not only money, but also lives, and the praised security provided by the state actually meant not only the destruction of the economy but even more deaths. If this turns out to be the lesson for humanity, I will be happy. But even if it turns out that freedom means an increased risk of death, it is still no reason to abandon it. Otherwise, what is the point of it all?