Coronavirus' auxiliary killers

'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.' Most of us have heard that statement before, Isaac Newton's third law of motion as it is. It has, of course, significance in our daily lives. That is to say, every decision we take has additional consequences, with these often being quite removed from the focus of the original action.

Stay-at-home orders: Doing more harm than good? (Image from Facebook.)

In the aftermath of the rather panicked, dithering response (eh, thanks China and the WHO for properly forewarning us, not) from many countries to our current pandemic, it is now quite clear that those making the decisions did so, ultimately, with just one goal in mind: 'Stop coronavirus at all costs.' Scant consideration appears to have been given to the knock-on effects of the extraordinary measures introduced.

Once the mantra flipped from 'it's just like the common flu' to 'this is a dangerous and deadly pandemic' (the flu is deadly as well, of course), all efforts were put into defeating it — for the most part, at least.

The early projections of a shocking global death toll — in the millions — convinced governments of the unquestionable necessity of widespread lockdowns and stay-at-home orders.

'As long as a majority believes that coronavirus must be stopped "at all costs" we will persist with measures that are deadlier than the very agent of destruction they're meant to defeat.'

Dissenting voices as to the efficacy of such measures and their unintended consequences were, indeed continue to be, largely discarded. Leaders were looking at those mortality projections if a light approach was taken and no doubt saw in them figures that would also kill their careers.

Be that as it may, while modelling and projections are helpful at the start, they are at root theoretical. They don't reflect the reality on the ground and they tend to treat society as a homogeneous unit. You can't beat real data and we now have a fair amount about coronavirus.

All lives matter

These data, as Dr Scott Atlas — Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a member of the institution's Working Group on Health Care Policy — and a number of other equally qualified experts point out, show how shockingly (the word some commentators like to use hysterically in reference to the coronavirus death toll and cases) wrong those projections were.

Moreover, again highlighted by Dr Atlas, the lockdown measures, so data suggest, are responsible for a far greater loss of 'life years' than Covid-19. That is to say, government-imposed restrictions are leading/will lead to more deaths than those linked to the virus. The damage has already been done.

As Atlas explains in his Hoover Institution Uncommon Knowledge interview, the numbers show a significant loss of said life years due to unemployment and a general lack of economic activity, together with delayed or foregone healthcare. That's just a synopsis of the issues at play, in the interview he goes into much greater detail.

I touched on this in previous posts, more from the perspective of what I imagined to be the unintended consequences of lockdown measures. Atlas's analysis spells it out more alarmingly.

Of course, talking about lives that will be lost in the future due to our actions today versus lives being lost right now, the latter will always dominate our attention. It must be said there are other preventable-for-a-time deaths occurring simultaneously with those linked to Covid-19, but it's the newness of coronavirus that ensures it dominates the discourse.

It's similar to the outpouring of emotion and willingness to help when people die due to a natural disaster or plane crash compared to a general lack of interest in the millions who die each year from a slow burner such as starvation.

What's more, it is understandable and somewhat forgivable that politicians, when shown worse-case scenarios relayed to a frightened public via sensationalised media reporting, want to show that they're doing all they can to ensure no untimely deaths happen on their watch. (Advisers and the media have a lot to answer for here.)

'The coronavirus-containment strategies that many countries have adopted are the complete opposite of utilitarianism.'

The thing is, as already highlighted, this is tunnel vision in the extreme. However, as long as the vast majority of the public believes that coronavirus must be stopped 'at all costs' we will persist with measures that are indeed deadlier than the very agent of destruction they're meant to defeat.

The coronavirus-containment strategies that many countries have adopted are pretty much the opposite of utilitarianism. We're inflicting greater harm on a greater number. It's one reason why the eminent historian Niall Ferguson sarcastically suggested that future historians will view Covid-19 as a mental illness rather than a virus-transmitted infection.

As Ferguson et al. have pointed out on umpteen occasions, there are smarter ways to tackle this pandemic. From a Colombian perspective, I don't buy it that the country can't implement them.

Yet, the many who appear to believe that coronavirus is the worst thing in the world, ever, tend to view those of us who suggest otherwise as, at best, heartless, selfish individuals, at worst some sort of neo-Nazis. (I'm curious to see the reaction of such types when we're faced with a virus that kills indiscriminately and in huge numbers. I take it mass suicides will be the suggestion.)

Time to broaden that range of vision, folks. Think about the fallout from the actions you blindly endorse and wipe that blood from your own hands before you start pointing accusatory fingers.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Easy empathy from the comfort of home

There really is no greater an emotive topic than death and the pain and suffering one's passing inflicts on those left behind. (OK, romance heartbreak might come close at the actual moment of hurt but this generally diminishes with time.)

We never really come to terms with the loss of a loved one, we just learn to adapt to the "new normal" it creates. As with most things, the passing years make it more bearable.

Downwardly mobile: Are people really willing to downscale for the good of humankind?

Of course, some deaths are more acceptable than others. The death of a person who's lived a long life and feels ready to "move on" is a little easier to deal with and understand than that of someone in his/her prime or, worse still, a youth who is only really starting out in life.

From a personal perspective, my paternal grandmother breathing her last when she was well into her 90s is a case of the former. My eldest sister's passing at the age of 47, leaving behind three young sons, is very much in the latter category.

Your number's up

Right now, as always, millions of people across the world are dealing with death. For some, as we are all well aware, this has been brought about by the novel coronavirus and the infection it causes, covid-19, an illness that we're still learning about and still unsure as to how deadly it is for society as a whole.

A more positive view of the figures and profiles of the majority of those who have succumbed to it thus far leads one to assume that it's not particularly lethal for large swathes of the population.

This, I stress, is not to belittle the suffering of those who are dealing with it.

'Will the comfortable classes opt for more modest lives, start some serious downscaling to reduce their overall consumption?'

Informing somebody who has just lost a family member or friend to complications arising from covid-19 that, all things considered, it's not too deadly for humankind as a whole is scant consolation. It's like telling people burying plane-crash victims that air travel is statistically the safest way to commute. 'Great, thanks.'

Nonetheless, in these highly emotive and uncertain times where many people are genuinely filled with fear, keeping a little bit of perspective on things is, I believe, a worthwhile exercise.

Just because one talks about numbers and stats it doesn't naturally follow that one is heartless, that one doesn't care about the people who have been tragically affected by covid-19.

Deadly decisions

This coronavirus is, in any case, and understandably so because of its novelty, dominating the public discourse.

Within that, there has been some discussion, which I touched on previously, about the unintended consequences of the measures countries around the world have introduced in a bid to control the spread of the virus.

There's the issue of the elderly and vulnerable locked up in their houses and frightened to step outside in the current environment. How many are shunning seeking regular check-ups, potentially allowing other deadly diseases and illnesses to develop that otherwise might have been nipped in the bud?

There's also the risk that outwardly healthy folk, who in normal times might have sought medical attention for something they think is minor yet is actually malignant, are not being seen to.

On the somewhat positive side, lives are being saved from the non-occurrence of fatal accidents that would have happened in "ordinary" times. Considering the more indiscriminate nature of such deaths compared to coronavirus-related ones, an upshot of this, we can assume, will be the human population maintaining a greater number of those of child-bearing age than would normally have been the case.

That, of course, might end up being more of a hindrance than a help to our collective future in the mid-to-long term.

Linked to this, as we're emitting less carbon into the atmosphere during this crisis, the resultant better air quality should, quite literally, give more breathing space to live for those with respiratory morbidity.

A long way down

With all the talk of the new modus operandi to come, brought about by the way we've been forced to change our lives due to coronavirus, it will be interesting to see how those currently taking the moral high ground in the comfortable classes will operate in the months and years to come.

Will they take serious steps to reduce their carbon footprint rather than just paying this lip service as they have generally tended to do? Will they opt for more modest lives, start some serious downscaling to reduce their overall consumption?

It's rather easy, working from home in one's plush surroundings, to follow the herd (although not herd immunity) and join in the outpouring of emotion during this coronavirus crisis, castigating those who "coldly" point to overall deaths and a world population that continues to grow steadily.

It's much harder to take steps that actually reduce one's living standards, steps that could help save the lives of our planet's most vulnerable. The big tests are yet to come.
_________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".