Currently, there seems to be a shortage of political will to lock down to stop the surging omicron variant of COVID-19.
What I don't understand: if they're unwilling to lock down now, why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?
Usually if you ask this, people answer "because capitalism doesn't care about people's lives."
But we had the same capitalism in March 2020. And in March 2020, lockdowns were unprecedented - I don't think most ordinary people would have faulted the government for not locking down, because that just . . . wasn't a thing that we did. And in March 2020, we didn't know about Long COVID yet. (Or, at least, ordinary non-medical people whose lives hadn't yet been affected by post-viral syndrome didn't.) And in March 2020, it was less commonly known that COVID is airborne.
Even if we think about it solely from the point of view of capitalism without regard for human decency, in March 2020 we didn't have so many people out sick that it was causing staffing shortages, closing nearly half of library branches and cancelling GO Transit trips.
As far as the general public could tell, capitalism could have chugged merrily along in March 2020 without issue, whereas the impacts are visible and tangible and undeniable in the omicron era.
So why were they willing to proceed with lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020?
To be clear, I'm not saying that they were wrong to do lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020. Rather, I'm saying that the argument for lockdowns and restrictions is far more compelling right now, and we're all old hands at it now. We all know how to zoom and pivot to takeout-only and choose the optimal grocery pickup slots.
So why were they willing to take then-unprecedented measures in March 2020, but aren't willing to take well-established measures now?
7 comments:
It's the same capitalism, but year before last, the capitalist community was taken by surprise. Since then they've had time to hone their PR strategy, their lobbying strategy, their HR strategy, etc. The framing of the supply chain and "inflation" issues has been nothing short of masterful. Clearly they're playing the media like a fiddle.
I think there's more at work than "it's capitalism" -- although that is definitely part of it.
In March 2020 there was a belief (or at least a hope) that the virus would run its course in a matter of months, or certainly within a year. It was viewed as a short-term, acute problem rather than a long-term problem to be lived with.
I think it's also the presence of the vaccine. We're told that most people will get Omicron, but for vaccinated people, it won't be a very serious illness -- which seems to be proving true. So what would good would a lockdown do?
And then, yeah of course, it costs a lot of money (or at least it should) to keep everyone home, and a huge portion of the economy suffers. And would it actually help?
In March 2020, there was a slogan, "flatten the curve," which is now a very distant memory. It seems that window of opportunity is forever closed. I have very little understanding of what was done in Canada, but the US' so-called PPP or "paycheck protection program" was an obscene joke. What should have been done is a more or less blank check for business, both large and small, both corporate and private, the government will cover your (1) payroll, (2) rent, and (3) debt service until such time as the curve is leveled or it is determined that a low-mortality pass-through was never a possibility. Simply send invoices for those three things and it will go away. No means tests among businesses, or most of the other bureaucratic hoops. Of course there would have been fraud in my response, but I'm convinced that system gaming is mostly due to system complexity. Certainly exploitation-of-complexity itself was the central feature of the business model pursued by the infamous Chuck Muer organization, who really made out like bandits from PPP. I'm about as anti-business as they come, but that's what I wanted to see happen at the time, even though it's probably "corporate welfare" in the purest imaginable form. Pandemic conditions break all ideologies. Many times many years before this event I've said anarcho-communism (closest camp to my worldview) doesn't have an answer to the problem of severe infectious disease outbreaks.
The problem with that "Omicron is mild" narrative is that "mild" actually means "you don't need a ventilator", rather than "you're home in bed for a couple of days and then you're fine." It's still miserable, it's still debilitating, you can still get Long COVID, and they're completely burying that.
It's like when the doctor says "You'll feel a bit of pressure" and then you feel the most excruciating pain you've ever felt in your life. Except for public policy affecting the vast majority of people on the planet.
For most people, Omicron really is "you're home in bed for a couple of days". In BC, vaccinated people aren't getting tested, they're just isolating for 5 days. Almost everyone
I know has had it and recovered easily. I know that's not statistically significant, but apparently that experience reflects the vast majority -- as long as you're vaccinated.
I get that may not be the experience for 100% of people who get covid, but enough to warrant a lockdown?
I should have written: For most people ^who are vaccinated^.
I thought you might be interested in this long, interesting story about endemic covid -- when that will happen and what it might mean.
https://www.wired.com/story/covid-will-become-endemic-the-world-must-decide-what-that-means/
It's weird that the people you know who've had it are recovering easily, because the people I know who've had/have it are like "This ain't no cold!"
But, regardless of anecdata, hospitals being overstretched is real, insufficient tests available is real, staffing levels being affected by the number of people calling in sick is real, wastewater signal flatlining is real, etc. So something more has to be done.
Post a Comment