My like is for sharing this, but I don’t agree with author’s conclusions. Terms aren’t the real issue, especially when government organizations are attempting to maintain order and prevent chaos in emergency situations. To me, making it clear that we’re in a battle for our survival is important. Solidarity and compassion might be what we need, but we don’t get that when we’re not facing any threats at all. Due to overreactions from citizens of countries that never even came close to the kind of lockdowns put in place in European countries and China, we’re now in a worse place strategically.
Those overreactions leading to more gun purchases aren’t surprising. We have a lot of groups who use any excuse to exclaim that the end is near, so they must prepare to defend themselves. They do the same thing when pols or the MSM report increases in crime, claim that those who hate guns are about to take office, declare UFO sightings have increased, warn asteroids are approaching Earth, etc. During the pandemic restrictions they made wild claims about martial law that never happened. In the name of freedumb, as well as the liberty to ignore a problem and ensure the right to infect others at will, emergency powers were removed from government in multiple US states.
When there’s another threat requiring immediate action, lockdowns won’t be possible here. So all the fearmongering about violations of human rights by the government will mean there will be fewer humans - period. Folks here will be free to act however they choose during the next pandemic, including violating other people’s rights* and complaining if they get caught. Based on what we’ve already experienced in the US because of a toxic stew of selfishness and greed, no matter what terms they choose to describe a fight against a similar virus in the future, that virus is gonna win - unless there is a massive change in attitude and behavior.
This also reminds me of an exchange in the movie Aliens, when the marines are in hostile territory but told they cannot use all of their weapons. They still have to fight the enemy, though, so…
Lieutenant Gorman : [to Apone over the radio] Look, uh, Apone.
[Apone snaps his fingers, bringing his troops to a halt]
Lieutenant Gorman : Look, we can’t have any firing in there. I, uh… I want you to collect magazines from everybody.
Private Hudson : Is he fuckin’ crazy?
Private Frost : What the hell are we supposed to use, man, harsh language?
from
We’ve had to endure attacks on science, logic, common sense, and common decency. Now, we’re getting complaints about harsh language. 
Language is one of the tools we use to get people thinking about a situation like the threat that it is. If the language of war is too divisive, too uncomfortable, or too threatening to be effective, I’d like to hear successful alternatives that got people working together (in the short and long term) for the greater good without the government suspending any of their liberties and rights. I mean examples from elsewhere of course, considering how long it sometimes takes the US to get involved in actual wars (looking at you and smh, WWII).
* Like those cases of deliberate attempts to infect others.
