due2/1/2021 11:59

Response to Two Peers (DUE: Tuesday by 11:59 PM EST)

· Each of your two responses to peers will be evaluated using the following criteria. In each response, the student should:

· Furthers the conversation by providing a compliment, comment, or connection

· Ask at least one thoughtful question in direct response to a statement(s) of others.  Your comments and questions should contributing additional analysis and build on the input of others through logical viewpoints or challenges.

· Use proper grammar and accurate spelling.  Writing is concise and easy to read.

· Each response Writes approximately 100 words. (2 -3 complete sentences)

1.A current policy issue being heavily contested is how to handle the pandemic, specifically whether or not to implement another lockdown. Public opinion makes implementing this policy incredibly difficult. From polarized opinions about the existence and importance of the pandemic, to concerns over the economic impacts of another lockdown, government officials are struggling to find a way to do it effectively and with as few negative impacts as possible. As far as the effects of public opinion, there is a large sect of the population who's jobs revolve around the country not being in lockdown, making them opposed to the implementation. However, public safety concerns demand a full lockdown, closing in person businesses and encouraging citizens to stay homes as much as possible. This decision is even more strained, because it would be the third lockdown in the US, hurting people more who were already affected by the past two. Legislators have to balance economic interests with public safety, especially with a new presidency in the White House. Corporations do not want a lockdown because it will negatively impact businesses, but it is likely to happen in the interest of public safety and decreasing the death rate of COVID-19. 

Your response:

2. Regarding the current policy issue of how to handle the pandemic, I think that the mass amounts of people who are afraid of the spread of COVID-19 heavily effects many of the elected officials who want to reopen the country and not have a lockdown.  I say this, because these elected officials who want to open the country back up have to be very careful of their wording when they promote reopening the country in order to avoid offending people who are afraid of COVID.  For example, the people most vulnerable to COVID have underlying health conditions that can potentially make the disease more deadly to them, and the amount of people in the US with underlying conditions is not necessarily a small population.  Given this information, if an elected official goes on tv and urges people to support reopening the country despite the risk of spreading COVID, there is a good chance this would offend the population of people with underlying health conditions.  This means that when the politician speaks out about reopening the country he or she is taking the risk that the underlying health condition population will criticize and despise that politician for the rest of his or her career.  With that being said, politicians and policy makers who are in support of avoiding another lockdown have to choose their words wisely and be very strategic about how they speak to the public about avoiding another lockdown.  If they are not careful, they could easily be accused of something like not valuing the lives of others or not caring for those who have underlying health conditions, which could damage their reputation.

Your response: