Think of everything you’ve ever heard about Covid-19 since March of 2020.
I mean literally everything.
All the news, all the arguments, all the rebuttals, all the takebacks, all the clichés, all the “abundances of caution”, all the fear, all the hate, all the mandates, all the nonsense.
It’s a lot, right?
What if I told you that every single thing you’ve heard, everything you’ve dealt with, everything you’ve wondered about relating to Covid, could be addressed and potentially resolved by a single question that nobody is willing to ask?
One question, that at its core, should dictate everything that is said, done, or published about Covid-19.
That would be some question, wouldn’t it?
But surely if such a question existed people would be asking it nonstop? It’s not possible that two years into the greatest political struggle of our generation that such a question would be sitting around unaddressed.
Sadly, it is possible, and it is reality.
How can that be? It’s simple.
The question has been forbidden.
Not just by entities of power like the media and the government, but more significantly, by a culture that doesn’t like to talk about uncomfortable ethical choices. Consider it a self-imposed, culturally policed, taboo. That’s right. Our very own empathetic nature and the judgment we fear from others for doing so has prevented us from discussing the one question that is more significant to this argument than any other.
Whew. That’s a lot of ado. Enough buildup! Let's get to it! Here's the million dollar question:
To what degree, is it the duty of the healthy majority, to make massive societal changes to protect an unhealthy minority?
Whoa! Did you hear that? That was the sound of thousands of voices crying out in anguish because they hate such a question.
And I get it. I do. It’s an uncomfortable question. It’s uncomfortable because people know the answer, but they also know if they say it aloud, they will be painted as heartless. It’s a question that forces us to address reality, even if the reality seems cold.
“But people are dying!” they scream. "My grandmother is on a ventilator! How can you be so heartless!"
These pathos laden arguments have dominated the Covid narrative for months, and they can be powerful. But just because they make us feel, doesn’t mean they should dictate the course of our entire society.
Think of it this way: If only 10 people on earth ever contracted Covid, would you then be opposed to sweeping government mandates restricting the freedoms of people, businesses, and our educational system? Of course you would.
What about only 100 people? What about 1000? For most reasonable people, it is clear that the issue isn’t a matter of if we should make sweeping societal changes, it’s a matter of when. It’s a matter of degree.
And that’s why I think it’s crazy that people get so caught up in arguing about matters that aren’t the real issue when it comes to Covid.
The major disagreement about Covid-19 and the way it has been handled is not an issue of whether it exists or not, it’s an issue of whether the degree to which it exists and/or its direct consequences justify the massive societal changes being implemented by the government. The media wants to paint people against mandates as Covid “deniers” or “truthers” or some other derogatory term meant to make them look crazy, but that’s not the case.
Most people don’t believe that Covid-19 is made up. There are those that do, but you can find people who believe literally anything if you look hard enough. You don’t get to pretend a fringe group is a majority just because it makes your argument appear stronger.
So what I want to scream from the rooftops, and what most reasonable people who disagree with the way Covid has been handled want to scream from the rooftops, is that as is, based on what we know about it, Covid is NOWHERE near serious enough to justify what we’ve done the normal, everyday operation of our society. And I'm willing to say that without one ounce of shame.
Look, if 25% of people are getting sick and dying DIRECTLY as a result of Covid-19, we can start considering sweeping societal changes. If you want to be ultra conservative, you might start thinking about them even if 10% of people are ill or dying. But we aren’t even close to either metric. We are at 1 to 2% at absolute most, and that’s only if you agree that every single person who tests positive or is counted as a Covid death is truly a major societal concern.
GASP! I heard it again! Someone’s jaw just dropped to the floor.
Did he just imply that Covid related deaths are not a major societal concern?
Well, yes and no.
The deaths are a societal concern in the sense that they impact the families and communities of our society. That means something. Always. But if the question is, “Are the lives lost to Covid-19 sad enough to justify the implementation of sweeping societal changes which destroy a generational way of life?” my answer is no. The relatively small percentage of deaths related to Covid-19 do not justify such a move. Even a relatively larger percentage of deaths shouldn't do that in my opinion.
Death is a part of life and it is always tragic. But we must be careful not to induce far greater tragedy onto the next generation of America just because of how sad it is that people have died. The left likes to paint this particular argument against government overreach as heartless so that they can focus on attacking that fabricated heartlessness instead of the actual argument being made. While that argument can feel noble, any society that won't address facts because it is blinded by emotions is doomed.
Do you know where a mindset which states we should destroy a generational way of life over a small percentage of deaths would take us if we applied it across the board in society? It would be madness. Never in history have the deaths of such a relatively small percentage of already health compromised people justified the hysterical government overreaches we have recently witnessed.
So what changed? What's different now?
The internet. That's what changed.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If the internet doesn’t exist, Covid-19 as a pandemic doesn’t exist.
In other words, there have always been health issues causing problems in our culture. The only difference is that in 1989 or 1915 or 1774 you couldn’t go to a website and look up "pandemic statistics" every second of every day until you were so scared you were hiding under a bed in your basement with a blanket over your head.
Covid-19 is one of many health issues the human race has had to deal with throughout history. It’s not the first, it’s not the worst, and it won’t be the last. The only difference between Covid-19 and the previous issues is that today the media is working relentlessly to make sure the 99% of healthy people don’t realize that 99% of people are still healthy.
Even if you call me a monster for saying we shouldn't massively alter society for the sake of an incredibly small subsection of it, I have no qualms being blunt about the stance. One, because I think this concept is incredibly important, but two, because I think the majority of ill and elderly people we have been referencing throughout this article are on my side.
I’ve spoken to people in their sixties and seventies. I’ve spoken to those with underlying health complications. While some of them are scared and are in favor of certain restrictions, most of the people I speak to don’t agree with the more draconian restrictions being placed on our society for their sakes, especially the restrictions that relate to young people and schools. Furthermore, it’s difficult to even get an unbiased response from many of these people, due to the perpetual state of fear they live in because the media keeps telling them they are going to die of Covid, which is completely untrue statistically.
So I ask you one last time:
To what degree, is it the duty of the healthy majority, to make massive societal changes to protect the unhealthy minority?
My answer, and the answer of every past generation of the world concerning any health issue as statistically insignificant as Covid-19 is to 98%+ people, is none.
The healthy majority should make no massive, societal changes to protect the miniscule unhealthy minority. I’d say that as a healthy person. I’d say it as a sick person. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And in this case, relative to the majority, the few who actually experience SERIOUS health issues due to Covid-19 are a microscopic number.
At the end of the day, children have to be educated in school, in person. Businesses have to have customers and the opportunity to serve them for profit. Churches have to be open for worship. Local communities have to be able to have picnics. Workers have to have jobs to go to. And society has to function based on the tried and true standards that have been proven effective for generations.
If you’re ever going to change this, you must have a reason far more consequential in totality than the relatively minor scope of Covid-19 as it was experienced by the majority of people who encountered it.
Otherwise, life has to go on.
Comments