A new front has opened in the war against coronavirus. It extends far beyond our beleaguered hospitals or even our bitter politics.

We’re now fighting each other.

And, given what took place in the last few days, the battle against the deadly strain of coronavirus known as COVID-19 is likely to worsen.

President Trump says he wants America to be “opened up and raring to go by Easter,” April 12. He did not say how he might do that. Nor did he say whether America might be disease-free by then.

Trump’s surprising statement came on the heels of another controversial proclamation by him that he did not want the economic hardships brought on by the nation’s fight against COVID-19 to be worse than the health problems caused by the virus itself.

"We can’t have the cure be worse than the problem," Trump said, echoing a Twitter message he posted Sunday. “We have to open our country."

To leave American business dormant, Trump suggested, "causes problems that, in my opinion, could be far bigger problems."

Left unspoken by Trump, but certainly voiced by plenty of ethicists, was the question of whether it was morally right for any nation to let some unhealthy people die so that the economy would remain stable — and healthy.

On countless battlefields, this is known as triage. For America in these troubling COVID-19 days, it is a new form of social, economic and political triage that has few rules.

Trump’s sentiments — countered by statements from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey’s Phil Murphy in the last few days — raise this question: Who decides when the “cure” is worse than the “problem” and its cost in human lives?

“Don’t make us choose between a smart health strategy and a smart economic strategy,” Cuomo said Tuesday.

Suddenly, without much discussion, our nation — and notably the COVID-19 epicenters in New York and New Jersey — is facing the kinds of moral decisions that only battlefield surgeons once grappled with.

On Wednesday, Cuomo sharpened the debate even more, specifically declaring that he does not feel the nation wants to deny care to the elderly in an effort to save younger people.

"We do everything we can to save a life," Cuomo said in his morning briefing. "We are not going to triage and say these are old people, well these are vulnerable people. They had to die sometime soon anyway, so let’s move on. I don’t believe any American believes that. I don’t believe New Yorkers believe that. As governor of New York, I can swear to you that I would never do that."

In his briefing Wednesday, Murphy did not mention Trump, but he left little doubt that he would not trade lives to jump-start the economy.

"Everyone is indispensable," Murphy declared, his voice rising. "We will fight to save every single life. We will leave nothing on the battlefield in that effort. There is no cost that is too high to save any one precious life."

"That is America," he added. "That is what we stand for. That is our value system. And that is New Jersey."

NJ CORONAVIRUS:New Jersey deaths rise to 44, with 3,675 infected

NEW YORK:Andrew Cuomo: Apex of coronavirus outbreak in NY two or three weeks away

With COVID-19 cases on the rise, the national dilemma goes far beyond medical issues and whether, for example, there are enough hospital beds and ventilators for patients fighting the virus. Suddenly our triage-like choices touch on social, economic and political questions.

What jobs are "essential"? What businesses? Should giant corporations get the biggest federal aid package to satisfy investors and stabilize the stock market? Or should that money be funneled to small businesses on our Main Streets or into the pockets of struggling workers now wondering how they might pay for groceries and medicine?

In some ways, we’ve already made some of these choices. But the reasoning does not always seem to make sense.

Liquor stores are allowed to stay open. So are bicycle shops. But card stores and frame shops are shuttered. Day care centers are open for essential workers, but not preschools.

“These are difficult choices,” said Angus Gillespie, a professor of American studies at Rutgers University. “We want a country that’s healthy and we want a country that is prosperous. And right now, they appear to be in opposition.”

In a recent essay, Peter Singer, a moral philosopher and professor of bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values whose views on a variety of topics from abortion to animal rights have sparked widespread debate, posed a hypothetical scenario that may soon become all too real.

Every bed in a hospital intensive care unit, Singer wrote, is occupied by critically ill patients. Every ventilator is being used, too. But the ICU staff receives a call from the emergency room that a 40-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 has just arrived. Unless she receives an ICU bed and ventilator, she will likely die.

Singer suggests that the ICU staff may be left with no other choice than to begin a painstaking calculation. "One of your ICU patients is over 80, and others have medical conditions that, with the best care you can give them, still leave them with a life-expectancy of less than five years," Singer writes. "What do you do?"

Singer points out, however, that such medical triage may become far more complicated as doctors weigh other non-medical factors. "Should those making admission decisions look beyond medical criteria and give priority to parents with young children over those living on their own?" Singer says. "Or to healthcare professionals, who after recovery can care for more patients?"

Singer notes that few answers are easy and advises doctors to "prepare for the worst with the growing COVID-19 pandemic. "If the worst does happen," Singer writes, "we will need to act, and that is not going to permit reflection and considered discussion."

Are politicians ready for such choices? Not likely.

Murphy compares the fight against the deadly virus to a war, urging New Jersey’s nearly 9 million residents that “if we do all of our parts, we will come through this” and “survive.”

Column continues below the gallery

But what does surviving mean?

Earlier this week, Murphy said he would guarantee that state authorities would block any efforts by water companies to shut off the taps of New Jersey residents unable to pay their utility bills.

“No New Jerseyan should fear for access to water,” he said.

Is that survival? What about the thousands of restaurants and other small businesses that are closed? How do they survive?

And while Murphy, Cuomo and a growing number of governors across America have called for more separation of people — social distancing — a counter-argument was voiced by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“I’m all in,” Patrick said, in vowing to risk his own health by lifting bans on socializing and going to work.

But if Patrick doesn’t mind taking a risk, what about others in his state or elsewhere?

So far, state leaders like Murphy and Cuomo have opted for strict social distancing and a shut down of most business activity. Both have taken criticism for their harshness. But with Trump now adding his voice to the chorus of officials wondering whether the economy may be badly wounded by social distancing and other stringent measures, who can make the final decision?

And when?

Federal officials say the nation’s economic output may decline by 30% in just the next quarter, from April to July 1, if America remains in its shutdown mode by closing all manner of businesses. Such a drop-off would be unprecedented. So it’s understandable that few rules are in place on how to handle such hardships.

Already, health care officials are wrestling with the frightening complications of trying to care for an onslaught of COVID-19 victims while rationing hospital beds and such vital equipment as ventilators.

In his Tuesday briefing, a frustrated Cuomo lashed out at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which promised only 400 ventilators for New York State.

"What am I going to do with 400 ventilators, when I need 30,000?" Cuomo asked, adding: "You pick the 26,000 people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."

Earlier this month the National Academy of Medicine updated a decade-old set of suggestions on how to make triage-like choices for patients during an epidemic such as COVID-19. But the academy’s conclusions, spelled out in its paper, entitled “Duty to Plan,” offered only vague, bureaucratic standards ranging from “fairness” and “duty to steward resources” to “transparency,” “consistency” and “proportionality.”

What happens when doctors and nurses have to reuse protective masks to examine different patients?

That question is already being faced at New Jersey and New York hospitals.

Another question for hospitals is trying to determine what staffers are so “non-essential” that they could be sent home to do their jobs — and therefore away from potentially catching COVID-19.

Earlier this week, some computer program staffers at Bergen New Bridge Medical Center in Paramus asked their supervisors if they could work at home. Other area hospitals had allowed some computer-tech experts to work from home. But officials at Bergen New Bridge told most of its IT staff to report to its offices in a building that is separate from its medical treatment wings.

“It's a scary situation for everybody,” said one staffer, who, like others interviewed, declined to give a name because of the fear of being fired for speaking up.

“I don’t want to lose my job,” this staffer said. “But what the administration is doing is irresponsible.”

In an emailed statement, Bergen New Bridge spokeswoman Donnalee Corrieri said the medical center has already been "regularly communicating and working with our staff to accommodate their needs as they arise."

"We are reviewing requests on a case-by-case basis," Corrieri added, "and have made accommodations for staff members who have extenuating situations, including Information Systems personnel, such as flexible work hours, telework or work-from-home arrangements."

But the issue raised by the Bergen New Bridge computer staff goes far beyond just a question of whether the hospital is safe.

The deeper question is who decides what workers and businesses are “non-essential.” Linked to such a question is another: When is it safe to feel safe again?

Right now, no one knows.

Mike Kelly is an award-winning columnist for NorthJersey.com. To get unlimited access to his insightful thoughts on how we live life in New Jersey, please subscribe or activate your digital account today.

Email: kellym@northjersey.com Twitter: @mikekellycolumn