When is governmental action morally justified? The morality of COVID-19 responses to protect less than 1%.

This is a serious question, I'm actually curious about what you would answer:

Given that as of today, 10/13/20, there have been at least 214,000 COVID-19 deaths in America, and given that those numbers are expected to be nearly 400,000 by February of 2021 (that is, only 111 days from now): At what point would governmental (local, state, or federal) restrictions (shutdowns, crowd limits, mask mandates) be justified in your mind?

1% of the current US population (331 million) would be over 3 million deaths. Thankfully, we have avoided this nightmare scenario {thanks in part to mitigation efforts, both voluntary and imposed}. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of less than 1%? Is economic hardship justified for less than 1%? Are limitations on the freedom of a country's citizens justifiable for less than 1%?

For comparison: In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected with the Spanish Flu 1918-1920, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population in 1918, those % amount to 1.588 million to 2.681 million Americans with today's larger population)

{COVID-19 death projections}

As of today, we are approaching 1/10th of 1% of America's residents killed by COVID-19 (331,000), and should surpass that number before Christmas. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of 1/10th of 1%?

The final number killed by this pandemic will, Lord willing, remain significantly less than 1%. What then does the Christian worldview offer to guide us regarding our level of concern for harms that may come to a small minority among us?

1. Abraham's conversation with God about Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis 18:20-32 (NIV) 20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[a] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[b] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” 26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” 29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” 32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

If there had been 10 righteous people in Sodom (sadly, there were not even 10), the city would have been spared. Without knowing the population of the city at that time, it is impossible to judge how small a minority this would have been, but it seems clear that it was less than 1% (i.e. that the city contained more than 1,000 people). While this example involves divine judgement, not governmental policy, it illuminates a principle that can be applied from the former to the latter.

2. Jesus' parable of the 99 and the 1 sheep.

Luke 15:3-7 (NIV) 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The numbers here are helpful, only 1% of the sheep are in danger in Jesus' parable, yet the shepherd leaves the 99 'in open country', not safe in a pen or with another shepherd, in order to rescue the lost 1. Once again, this is a spiritual example involving God's justice and mercy, but it too vindicates concern for the minority, even one as small as 1%.

3. Any is too many when Peter reflects on God's purposes.

2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Governmental officials, not having the wisdom or power of God, have to make hard choices. They sometimes must make choices that will lead to the harm of some in order to protect others. From God's perspective, there are no 'throw away' people. All of humanity is created in the image of God. Every person has a soul, every person is one for whom Christ was willing to die.

Conclusion: From a Christian worldview perspective, whether one is a libertarian or a socialist, a Republican or a Democrat, or any other political view or allegiance, the biblical model remains clear: One is worth sacrificing for, tiny minorities have value in the sight of God.

What precautions should be taken, and who should be encouraging or ordering them is a political question. Christian men and women of good intentions can and do disagree about HOW to put our concern for those in need into action {and not just on this topic}. However, what we don't have the luxury of doing, as Christ followers, is making a cold calculation that 1/10th of 1% of Americans are not WORTH sacrificing for. That this pandemic primarily affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions is irrelevant from a moral point of view. As Christians, we remain beholden to the Law of Love:

Mark 12:28-31 (NIV) 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”