Couldn't agree more. If anything, these past two years have taught me one thing more than anything else. Life and freedom is such a precious thing. My biggest fear/regret is not that I catch COVID and end up seriously ill, but rather that I don't make the absolute most of the time I have here at the moment to enjoy life, have as many fulfilling experiences as possible, spend time with family and friends and travel the world, taking in as much culture and variety as I
can. The thing that angers me so much about our response to COVID is that the argument seems to be:
We must take away almost all quality of life from the entire population to increase the quantity of (the poor quality) life currently here by a much lesser amount.
This stems from our societal view that death is the worst possible outcome/factor in any decision-making, and everything, including ruining the experience of life itself, must be viewed as a lesser priority than the prevention of death, regardless of how marginal the difference/perceived gain in any situation would be (how many times have you heard 'even one is too many'?)
In theory, we could force everyone to eat 5 a day, do their 2 hours of vigorous activity a week, stick below 14 units of alcohol, give up smoking, isolate at the first sign of any illness no matter how mild, stay at home and not take part in any 'risky' activities, but do we? Of course not! As a species, the things we treasure most in life (making memories, being with family, enjoying new experiences, feeling the rush of adrenaline in a perceived 'risky' situation) are all associated with a certain level of risk. We have, through our very long history, managed to find a mostly effective balance which prioritises both our ability to enjoy a fulfilling, varied life (with a sensible level of risk associated with this) and our ability to live a long, healthy life due to advances in our understanding of health and science/technology.
This whole COVID response has been, in my opinion, one of the greatest overreactions in human history, fuelled by sensationalist media-reporting, the political climate we have created across the world, and the theoretical field of epidemiology being out of touch with the real world. At the beginning of the pandemic, I admittedly was generally supportive of the response, as I felt that it was my civil responsibility to do my bit to prevent what (at the time) was going to be a catastrophic level of mortality across the country. As time went on, and we learned more about the virus, it should have become clear that the initial lockdown was unnecessarily stringent. In an ideal world, politicians across the world would have sensibly addressed the public, using the latest evidence and data, to provide an insight into the true level of risk associated with this virus. Whilst the vaccine rollout was taking place, I can see the merit in imposing some (mild/moderate) population restrictions to ensure that spread is reasonably well contained whilst immunity is built up on a national level. At the stage we are now at, however, it is clear that the risks of removing all (and I mean all) restrictions (at least domestically) would be miniscule.
What we are now seeing is the impact of:
Politicians who care more about their own career and reputation than honesty and integrity. They are so afraid to admit that the initial response was too heavy-handed that they instead continue the narrative as it was before (this keeps their careers, reputations, and wages, secure)
A sensationalist media combined with a public who have been taught since birth that death is the worst possible outcome in any situation. As soon as death is mentioned in the media and there is an alternative provided to avoid this, it seems only natural that a significant number of people will demand this action is taken. This is just basic evolution.
Experts and Scientists who are finally, after waiting for years, able to apply their knowledge in the public eye, and are aiming to outdo each other and ensure their professional reputation isn't tarnished (hence the scary models (can you imagine being labelled as the 'scientist who stopped the lockdown and killed thousands') and heavy restrictions (Scientists by nature are biased towards their own field. Someone who specialises in preventing the spread of disease will always think up of the most effective way to do this (ie, preventing human contact). It is the job of politicians to balance this advice against the advice of experts across a wide range of fields to make proportionate and balance decisions, which I don't think many (if any) countries have managed to do in this pandemic).
I remain confident that the wider public is now realising that the level of government intervention is disproportionate to the threat posed by this particular situation. I can see we are nearing the end of this pandemic. I remain hopeful that brighter days lie ahead. I sincerely hope that we are able to take what we have learned in the past few years forward, and that any national response to a particular threat (of any kind) will now take into account the wider risks from all angles.
I am less confident that our society will start to view death as an aspect of life and something which. I believe that death should not be feared, but accepted to allow us to make the most of the time we have here.
I am not confident at all that our politicians will ever prioritise integrity above their own interests, but that’s just how it goes these days.
Rant over!
), should speed limits on roads be scrapped too? After all, almost every driver on the road exceeds them regularly, despite that fact that speeding kills many, many people every year.
