Democracies around the world are having a hard time containing COVID. Glen Pearson writes:
Democracies increasingly look incapable of containing the spread – not because governments aren’t trying, but because citizens themselves, confined for months, feel inclined to gather, despite the consequences. Some experts are already claiming that another wave, fueled by a morphing virus, is about ready to break upon us. As democracies succumb to the mounting caseloads, evidence is emerging that our citizenship ultimately lacks the collective and individual disciplines that guard our security.
All of our wealth, health systems, social supports, political structures, and information technology appear unable to keep a portion of us from putting the rest at risk. Though mostly unintentional, the need to be free is placing our collective freedom in jeopardy. And regardless of one’s opinion on this development – and there are many – the rise in cases and hospitalizations has now become a democratic and political problem. 2021 might well exacerbate those dimensions more than 2020 ever did.
The battle is between individual liberty and public health. It shouldn't be that way, If you're dead, you can't take advantage of the fruits of democracy. But there are those among us who believe their ability to do as they choose is more important than the commonweal.
Image: Pinterest
14 comments:
Mister "T" does not have a monopoly on selfishness, does he? To suggest that over half of Canadians who admitted to travelling over the holidays or visited people outside their immediate family are motivated by the need for individual freedom (at the expense of the other half) is too kind, Owen.
Ontario could take a lesson from New Brunswick, whose Conservative Premier has enforced guidelines and mandates from the beginning of this pandemic with great success. Was the success the result of sheer luck, clear provincial direction, or a population who values their freedom less than other Canadians do, or a genuine concern for themselves and one another, or all of these things?
CD
We have lost our sense of the common good, CD. There are things that are more important than our personal comfort.
We saw a great reduction in highway traffic deaths when wearing seatbelts became mandatory and failing to do so became punishable. We saw similar reductions when police and courts became serious about impaired driving. Indeed, virtually nobody still argues for the freedom to drive unrestrained and drunk, or to break speed limits at will.
Voluntary public health guidelines are as effective as making seatbelts a safety option. When you make something mandatory and start enforcing the law without exceptions, people realize you're serious and stop blathering about their "freedoms." It's past time to tighten up mask bylaws and start fining and jailing people who break public heath laws.
It's also high time the government was clear on what's expected of people. I actually feel some sympathy for the pols being roasted in the press for travelling abroad. If the policy is that people shouldn't travel, why are airlines still allowed to carry people without requiring proof of essential travel? And why are the essential travel guidelines so broad that insurance agents qualify as essential workers? People generally want to do the right thing, and those that don't need to be compelled to do so. The problem is a lack of leadership.
Cap
Expecting people to do the right thing is a noble gesture, Cap. But human beings need incentives to do what is right -- because so much of human behaviour is transactional.
There's an article in the Guardian about the damage politicians, celebrities and other "influencers" cause when, through their indulgent behaviour, they undermine the public trust. A study found that when our betters break the rules, popular compliance plummets. It turns out that the public will be quite compliant until they see people of prominence flouting the rules.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/02/follow-covid-restrictions-break-rules-compliance
A strong counter arguement, Kim Iverson makes pointing to India's Virus Strategy.
https://youtu.be/VHBJMY0tHZc
India started with strong lockdown until they realized it was causing more deaths via starvation and sun stroke then Corona was. So India decided instead of waiting for the Vaccine or going through deadly lockdowns to preemptively treat it, and so far it's gone well with India in Herd immunity range. I reject the idea that it's a choice between Liberty and Life. I'll add Kim is very much a leftwinger.
India has found a way to balance both and it's India we should be emulating, not the Governor of New York.
Besides what Kim talks about you can also compare Florida and New York. NY went into lockdown hardcore, Florida refused to do a lockdown at all. And Florida with it's larger population (21 million in Florida vs 19 million in New York) has half the Corona dead then New York.
Lockdowns kill too. We need a balanced approach, because not just lives, but our way of life needs protection just as much.
Look I didn't visit extended family during the holidays and I'm kind of anti-social and rural so the lockdown doesn't effect me as much as other folks, so its not selfishness that moviates me, it's a firm belief that liberty and the quality of life matters as much as survival, including my own life.
Millions died in world wars because they believed that Liberty, not just their own, but that of everyone was more important then their own survival, how can we ask less of ourselves?
Talk is cheap, Mound. Example is gold. And setting a bad example sinks ships.
The problem, Gyor, is that liberty -- to some -- means licence. It's much more than that. And licence can be an excuse for moral failure.
@ Gyor
Considering that India is THE world hub at manufacturing vaccines and is now onto making Covid-19 vaccine, (it has already turned out over 50 million doses of the AstraZeneca type and is about to turn out millions more of the Russian Sputnik vaccine, the Pfizer vaccine as well, plus at least two others, Covashield and Covaxin), your revelation makes one wonder why the hell Modi is bothering to vaccinate the population!
I mean they've achieved herd immunity, right? According to some nobody called Kim Iversen, at least. So why bother with the expense of vaccination if India has achieved this virus immunity utopia already? I call utter poppycock on Iversen and you for believing such nonsense.
When I search for herd immunity in India, the results seem to indicate that cases are declining in slums, not the country at large which is vast, and the headline writers seem divorced from the articles as written. The headlines rattle on about herd immunity, but they did six months ago as well, yet the text is much more what you'd expect -- there seems to be some local herd immunity, which isn't herd immunity at all, now isit? I think the headline BS is called propaganda used to generate hope and to avoid panic while they, like us, await vaccine in decent quantities.
I invite you to google and read some Indian newspaper reports for yourself. Herd immunity already? Sure. In your dreams.
The other thing about any virus is the viral load a person receives when infected. As my brother the doctor continually reminds me. Get a lot and you're in trouble, get a little and your immune system can react well and fight it off. New York was hit at the beginning of the pandemic when everyone was clueless and there were few masks, hence the high death rate. Florida came along later, and I bet your average oldster there wears a mask, greatly reducing the viral load they're likely to get in an encounter. That explains NY versus FL easily.
You have to use your loaf and do your own research. Else you wander around in a haze of misperception and incorrect conclusions.
BM
I'll let Gyor respond, BM.
The so called "herd immunity" didn't work in Sweden either.
Gyor, there is a legal concept that your right to wave your arms around ends when you make contact with my nose. In a similar manner, you might choose to put yourself at risk of Covid-19 but you have no right to put other people at risk.
Another version of that, Toby, is the old saw that you have the right to freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
Since when have "first-world" nation citizens EVER been disciplined, and NOT been narcissistic and hedonistic?
What you describe is a most logical expectation to spoiled "first-worlders" experiencing any crisis situation.
We First Worlders have always had a sense of entitlement, Tal.
Post a Comment