The next global pandemic will be managed a lot better than this one. Oregon and the world will be more prepared.

Right?

Maybe. But panic, scramble, and then relax is the more typical pattern of response to a threat. Oregon should do better. The world is not going to get less crowded or less connected.

Can the state get better at contact tracing and quarantining? Will local governments stage mock pandemic exercises? Will hospitals keep stocks of PPE? We can’t allow ourselves to get sick of all the focus on sickness.

With the virus raging, now may not be the best time to distract health policy experts and politicians with pandemic preparedness. At the national level, Congress needs to pass another relief package. The Oregon Legislature should do something about renters who may be evicted when the moratorium expires — among other things. But there are a couple longer-term things on our mind.

Authority is one. Gov. Kate Brown’s executive orders have faced repeated legal challenges. A most recent one came from the Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association. ORLA sought an injunction that would have ended Brown’s two-week freeze. ORLA argued other similar businesses did not face as extensive regulations. A federal judge rejected it.

Earlier this year there were also questions raised about the restrictions on places of worship in Oregon. A U.S. Supreme Court decision last month blocked the state of New York from enforcing attendance limits at places of worship while the issue continues to be argued in court. The court said New York’s limits did not appear to be applied equally and singled “out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”

Mask mandates and other restrictions are sensible responses to prevent a deadly virus from spreading. There are boundaries to freedom. When your actions could endanger others is the fuzzy line where freedom ends. It doesn’t mean everything Brown does is OK. Executive orders that don’t have a foundation in science should be fought and scrapped. But it’s not unreasonable for Brown to compel people to try to minimize risk to other people.

But what role should the Legislature have in making decisions about such sweeping regulation of freedom and the economy? Now its role is near zero. Is it right that Brown should be able to revise and extend emergency orders for month after month? At what point should a governor be required under the law to get Legislative approval? Can the Legislature be nimble enough and functional enough to play more of a role? That issue certainly seems worth revisiting.

We were also disturbed by a law passed during the pandemic about government meetings. The law makes it clear that virtual public meetings are allowed. Smart move. But at least according to our understanding, there is no requirement that such meetings be broadcast live nor how much time can be allowed to pass before a recording of a meeting is presented to the public. Some government bodies also have not been allowing the public to comment during their meetings with anywhere near the same welcoming attitude of the pre-COVID world.

Those changes are a threat to the idea that the public should be able to observe government decision-making and public participation. Will they be allowed to become permanent?

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that there be a national campaign to commemorate the 1918 flu pandemic. It was a way to remind people of the dangers of viral pandemics — deaths, the disruption of lives and the economy. People won’t need that sort of messaging now. But will government take action to ensure we are better prepared?