Coronavirus solutions need to be logical, constitutional

America and the world are confronted with an unprecedented pandemic. At least, it is unprecedented in our lifetimes. But it is not the first pandemic. Over the centuries, the world has suffered the pestilence of multiple devastating plagues and pandemics. One of the most deadly respiratory diseases was the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918, killing an estimated 675,000 in the U.S., which had a population of about 100 million at the time.

In the U.S., prior to the recent coronavirus pandemic, we unfortunately continued to accept deaths from the various forms of influenza; for example, for the six months from October 2019 through March 2020, we had about 38 million flu cases, resulting in at least 23,000 deaths.

In the U.S., we currently have 137,000 coronavirus cases resulting in about 2,400 deaths, and these numbers are growing. Importantly, it’s not just the raw numbers we must analyze, it’s an analysis of who makes up those deaths, which we have thus far been able to identify. In general, it’s the elderly and those with immune deficiencies or other challenges concentrated in certain “hot-spots.”

I emphasize that the coronavirus plague is an incipient crisis. In no way am I diminishing the tragedy of even a single death, no matter the cause. As we learn more about the coronavirus every day, however, we improve our ability to deal with it rationally.

In responding to this pandemic, logic tells us that there are various potential solutions to this pandemic. At the two extremes of the spectrum, there are unacceptable choices.

At one end of the spectrum, similar to the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak, we can do nothing and simply let the pandemic run its course, and we suffer the unacceptable and disastrous consequences.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can shut down all businesses, sports venues, churches, synagogues, restaurants, hotels, resorts, tourism venues, and any other congregation of people, and we will suffer the unacceptable consequences of destroying the jobs and businesses that can sustain us through this pandemic — as well as create massive long-term social, mental health, criminal and other societal costs to all of us.

Fortunately, there are solutions that lie between doing nothing and a lock-down of all people. We are an innovative people and most now realize that stopping the coronavirus pandemic and preserving the fiscal health of our citizens are not mutually exclusive events. A cost-benefit or riskreward analysis is a necessary part of any solution, and permits us to fashion a solution that actually protects all of those involved.

We should adopt a surgical-type of approach that, in the end, will be much more effective and sustainable than a lock-down that is simply unsustainable and financially disastrous to us all.

It is an approach that, just a few months ago, would have been considered over-thetop and intrusive. It requires social distancing of 6 feet or more; isolation of those who are the most at-risk, such as the elderly and all those with respiratory and other conditions that cause them to be most vulnerable to coronavirus; and requiring massive cleanliness protocols, including hand-washing, taking of temperatures of people, large scale testing, and excluding people from establishments if they exhibit any signs of illness. This solution includes redirection of resources for medical care relating to prevention and treatment of coronavirus.

We must move past simply reporting numbers of coronavirus cases and deaths. We need to identify the specific details as to the type of individuals who have contracted this virus. With this information, our governments can protect the elderly and otherwise at-risk population from the remainder of our more resilient population so that businesses and our economy can continue as normally as possible. This will actually protect those most vulnerable to this pandemic.

In addition, it is likely that our local, state and federal governments must adopt this surgical approach.

Constitutionally, our governments are in certain circumstances prohibited from exercising police power in emergency circumstances if to do so is a regulatory taking of a person’s property.

The U.S. and Florida constitutions demand that our governmental entities pay innocent property owners, such as restaurant owners, bar owners and resort owners, the fair market value of the businesses that governments destroy by indiscriminate or over-broad exercise of their police powers.

In fact, it is questionable whether some local governments even have the authority to enter their recent sweeping orders that have effectively shut down certain businesses.

Common sense, logic, and our constitutionally required respect for the rights of innocent persons and their property require that we adopt an approach that is surgical in its implementation and effect.

Our governments do not have the authority to apply an over-broad, one-size-fits all approach to dealing with this growing pandemic.