But ethically, these slogans highlight two different approaches to the common good: going it alone, with each of us fending for ourselves, versus hanging together, seeking solidarity. In a highly individualistic society like ours, we don’t do solidarity very well, except in moments of crisis, such as wartime.

Our lack of preparedness for the pandemic reveals the lack of solidarity in our social and political life, especially in our inadequate system of public health and lack of universal access to health care and paid sick leave. This makes the sudden, ritualistic invocation of the slogan “we’re all in this together” ring hollow.

TF: There has been a lot of discussion, most prominently in Britain before it opted for a three-week shutdown, about “herd immunity” — let a lot of people quickly get the virus, most will recover fine, tend to the most ill, but within a period of weeks a critical mass of people who become immune will eventually force the virus to peter out because it won’t have enough hosts.

How do you see the ethical choices around herd immunity?

Sandel: The strategy of contending with the pandemic by allowing the virus to run its course as quickly as possible in hopes of hastening “herd immunity” is a callous approach reminiscent of social Darwinism — the idea of the survival of the fittest. It allows the contagion to spike, intensive care units to be overrun, the most vulnerable to die, but with the goal of jump-starting the economy sooner rather than later.

I predict we will soon be hearing cost-benefit analyses showing that the dollar value of a life saved by social distancing is too high to sustain the existing restrictions. This purely utilitarian approach is far from the ideal of solidarity, which requires that we show as much care and concern for those who are weak and vulnerable as for those who are strong and powerful.

I understand, though, that responsible public health experts have a less harsh scenario in mind.

TF: Yes, the ones I have been writing about or following are actually proposing a phased strategy: 1) Practice social distancing and sheltering in place across the country for at least two weeks, so whoever has the disease would likely manifest symptoms in that period. Those who can recover at home would do so, sequestered from healthy living partners, and those who needed hospitalization would seek it. 2) Alongside this we would do much more testing, to actually get a grasp on which regions and age cohorts — how many young people, how many in their 40s — are most affected. 3) Once we have enough of that data, we can then begin phasing healthy and immune workers back into the workplace, or back to school, while still sequestering those who are elderly or immune-compromised until the “all-clear.”

It seems to me that their argument is also grounded in the common good. They’re arguing that “work” and the overall health of the economy is also a health issue. If we have millions of people who have lost businesses that they have spent a lifetime building or savings that they have spent a lifetime accruing, we will have an epidemic of suicide, despair and addiction that will dwarf the Covid-19 epidemic.