Short term is mmmmm?
It’s getting rougher. After my last blog saying we are in a holding situation, the scene has changed – rising numbers of covid 19 cases, increasing personal restrictions, and the effects on the pandemic of the return to work and school yet to be seen. Coupled with the upcoming economic consequences and the realisation that this really is a long haul is it any wonder people are feeling depressed/angry/intolerant/hopeless/selfish - coupled to any manner of behaviours.
The good news is that the death rate continues to fall as those people who are testing positive are disproportionately young with relatively mild illnesses and the treatments are improving. This is reflected in the low/single digit numbers of daily deaths in England. To get a sense of proportion, these numbers need to be seen in the context of the daily ‘normal’ death toll of about 1600. Covid 19 deaths are a very small proportion of these.
So it begs the question of why, at enormous expense, the entire social and economic system is continuing to be disrupted for an illness with a low mortality in the knowledge that the collateral damage of isolation and delayed treatments from the restrictions will undoubtedly see rising morbidity and mortality. And it will take a generation to pay off the debt. Where lies the health cost benefit?
Part of the answer to why such decisions are being made is the nature of our society. We have moved into a ‘instant’ society whose currency is the short term – driven by the immediacy of technology especially its social platforms with ‘twitter storms’ and instant messaging. A casualty of this trend are the institutions and qualities that provide some ballast against the changing winds of the day. We see it in the organisation of the NHS where rapid access trumps continuity of care and relationship. We see it in the brains of children who are losing their ability to concentrate as they use smart technology devices for gaming - reinforced by the entertainment industry with products which need only short spans of attention. We see it in the short term decisions regarding the environment where the comforts of the present outweigh thoughts of caring for the future. We see it in the election of populist governments and their disregard for both organisations that stand in their way (such as the inconvenience of international law and treaties with the new Brexit legislation) and even for the truth itself. In this context, the government prioritises the avoidance of illness today over the consequences of its actions tomorrow.
This approach to the pandemic leads to other unhealthy consequences – increasing isolation and intolerance. As people become isolated (last week in Cornwall we went to a pub and had to order outside from an app avoiding human contact) they exchange views with fewer people. At the same time technology reinforces their views through clever algorithms. The isolation and the reinforcement creates certainty about that view. Then coupled with infrequent contact, its expression becomes more radical, more extreme and more immediate. Extinction rebellion stopped the distribution of some newspapers for a day and the full power of the state responded by saying they might introduce primary legislation to re-classify XR as ‘an organised crime group’ with up to five year sentences. Both the action and the response are examples of intolerance pushing people to develop more extreme positions.
So it demands of us individually that we pay increased attention to nurturing how we live, and to our relationships with family, friends and community where fortunately we usually still see the longer term as at least as important as the short term. It’s a choice. What’s yours?