I don't think it was wise for any government to begin with the bravery of Sweden when confronting an unknown virus. However, now the virus is understood more, is it possible we need leaders who are prepared to take us back to normal life. Rather than piling on rules, is it time leaders led by sharing responsibility, by spelling out the truth, which is a) that we have a lurking enemy that isn't going to disappear and against which we may never have a vaccine, b) that there are groups who are vulnerable and for them death from this illness is a danger and c) that therefore each individual will be equipped with all the information and advice that the government can muster to allow them to assess the risk they might face.
If an at-risk individual chooses to shelter, they should be free to do so and the government should support them. If, on the other hand, (as many older people seem to), an individual wants to run the risks that come with seeing their children and grandchildren, having decided that a life lived without the pleasures of family and community is not a life they feel is worth living, then that must also be allowed, even though it might lead to the deaths of some of those concerned.
Government's role is not to lay down rules but to provide information so that each individual can make an informed choice. This is understood when it comes to tobacco and alcohol, both seriously dangerous to human health. In their use of those substances, individuals decide what level of danger they are prepared to take on, and the same should apply when it comes to risk from an illness that is not going away.
Our politicians need to be brave, explaining that, while this will pass and we will get through it, pain and death is unavoidable. It is the right of each individual to make a judgment about what peril they are prepared to put up with, and it is the role of government to ensure that each of us is well enough informed to make that judgment. As to the health service, it is not a religion. The government needs to equip it well, not to shield it because it is worried that it isn't well enough equipped.
I do understand that the virus is highly infectious, in a way that alcohol and tobacco are not, but, as I say, each individual, with proper information provided by government, can make the decision to stay out of harm's way - and the government can concentrate its efforts on providing assistance to them to do that. The option must be there for the vulnerable to avoid crowded restaurants, buses and theatres, but the option for those who are not vulnerable - (or who decide that they don't mind running a considerable risk) - to continue life as usual must also be provided. Aside from anything else, if the path of never-ending blanket lockdown is followed, there will be no money to fund a health service of any kind, and then where will we be? But more importantly, a society made of people who make their own informed choices is a mature society, whereas a society where people are told what they must do and obey because they are punished when they are naughty is one in which we are infantilised and ruled without respect.
This has been my view for months. It should be easy to devise a simple system based on vulnerability status & warning symbols to let people know how to evaluate any location for the level of virus danger that exists. Everybody knows the general rules for distancing & masking. It might be time for some active resistance to what I suspect are illegal mandates from mayors & governors about what businesses can be open or what activities we can participate in.
ReplyDeleteI think most people know which places are risky. My big hesitation is that I am looking at this while living in a spacious high-ceilinged flat with a balcony, nice neighbours, wifi, an exercise bike & really helpful local shopkeepers. So many people live in poky miserable places with no one they trust nearby. Deciding to keep yourself safe by staying at “home” in somewhere that makes you unhappy must be very hard (& an indictment on architects & social planners.) But then people in those sorts of places will be forced to stay stuck indoors anyway, with enforced lockdowns.
DeleteWhat happened to the concept of flattening the curve? That was sensible. Has has it happened? There has been no briefing about Ireland’s current preparedness. We live very quietly in the country and would be reading and gardening and making shavings in the workshop and safe but for the fact that a son is staying with us who works in Merrrit Medical making high tech stents etc. There are 1,000 working there - no masks, no social distancing, no handwashing. I hope they sterilise the products thoroughly. It’s very likely that we will get corona before a vaccine is developed. I’m not too worried, we are healthy but I wish that we were not governed by moral morons who last week were discussing a bill to enable suicide. That was sent for discussion to an existing committee and luckily not one specially convened and packed to produce the ‘right’ answer. The cunning of the stupid continues to amaze me.
ReplyDeleteBest Wishes.
The stupid or the wicked?
DeleteI'd forgotten about the curve being flattened. So many phrases have been thrown about.
We may get it, we may have had it, we may die from it, we may recover (oooh yes, but then you might get the long hangover illness), we may, if we are as clumsy as me, (I'm a person who actually once fell out of a window!), trip and fall on the 96 stairs up to our apartment or get another illness we've always been danger of but didn't know existed, like my farmer friend who has just been carted off to hospital with pneumonia stemming from Q fever, a disease he'd never heard of, despite working with livestock for decades. We most of us have a terror of death and we most of us aren't well educated in how to assess the risk of it. We've grown up in a world where we have been encouraged to believe death is, if not avoidable, endlessly postponable. A world with this virus in it is a world where that will not always be the case and adjusting to that fact isn't easy.
May I correct my post in which I mention Merrit. When I first inquired about mask wearing at the initial stages of the pandemic I was informed that they were not wearing them in the factory. Now there is mask wearing for the last few months. People argue about their effectiveness. My view is that whether or not they are, they at least allow people to go out with a sense of security perhaps of a notional sort. Now Ireland is moving into the most severe lockdown in Europe for 6 weeks and a promise of Xmas for good behaviour. Best wishes for your good health and anti-gravity stairs.
ReplyDeleteI have a fear of catching the virus in enclosed crowded places and so I quite like masks in those, as they must have some slight effect. However, I find them hard to wear for any length of time, so I'm not going to the theatre or concerts or even museums at the moment - and I wouldn't if mask wearing wasn't compulsory, because I would be anxious about airborne particles, because I'm over 60 and therefore not totally unlikely to get a bad case of the new virus. I appreciate the fact that younger people can enjoy those things here in Hungary though and also that I am trusted to take my own decisions on such things. I hate being told what to do - at least I hate it if I'm not also provided with good explanations.
DeleteI also am a troisieme age person (French tact). Masks are a nuisance. Christmas may be saved if the present R no. is brought down. There is already improvement in Ireland after a week of lockdown. I hope it works out for you with your daughters.
ReplyDeleteThank you. The advantage of masks is that I can use up all the scraps I have from dressmaking - making masks, that is.
Delete