We're not doing any of this because a lot of people were going to catch a cold. We're not destroying our economies and societies because a tiny number of people felt tired for a few months after a cough. We aren't allowing babies and children to die because a new strain

of coronavirus is at large. We were told, in no uncertain terms, that this new virus CAUSES a brand new, deadly disease called Covid-19, the like of which we had never seen before. A disease so horrific that doctors were having emotional breakdowns after treating it. That is what
all of this is based on. The reasoning behind a global reaction which may well lead to the permanent destruction of all the things that make life a worthwhile experience.
In nine months of being immersed in this swamp of information, I have still not found an explanation of what
it is about Covid-19 that makes it so different from other respiratory illnesses.
I think the most important question is this:
What scientific or medical reasoning prevented the message to the public being something along these lines:
'There is a new strain of coronavirus spreading around the world. For the vast majority, it's asymptomatic. Most who have symptoms will experience a mild cold. A tiny number will suffer longer-term fatigue (as is the case with many other viruses). However, for the elderly,
particularly those with underlying conditions, it could lead to severe and potentially fatal pneumonia. This is also a risk with many, many other viruses of this nature. Likewise, as with many other viruses, a tiny number of young, otherwise healthy individuals could end up
suffering complications and dying. But the vast majority of those who die will be at a stage of their lives, and level of pre-existing illness, where they would have died at some point in the next year or two, regardless. Unfortunately, there is very little we can do to prevent
this and, as happens every year, it will place additional pressure on the NHS. We would ask that people be mindful of the situation and if you are experiencing symptoms, stay at home until you feel better.'

Why not that?
Rather than, "Covid-19 disease is here to kill you all."
https://t.co/ZqIbv4KKOQ

More from Economy

Interesting thread, but I don't think ecosocialists or degrowthers are arguing that if German socialists had come to power the world would be green by now. Socialism is not automatically green. Eco-socialism is what it says - a green version of socialism - to be tested /1


The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2

We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3

We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4

We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
One of the hardest problems post-pandemic will be how to revive so-called "left behind" places.

Post-industrial towns, run-down suburbs, coastal communities - these places were already struggling before the crisis and have fared worst in the last year.

What should we do?

Today, @ukonward sets out the beginning of a plan to repair our social fabric. It follows our extensive research over the last year, expertly chaired by @jamesosh, and funded by @jrf_uk, @Shelter and @peoplesbiz.

https://t.co/d3T5uPwG9N


Before I get into recommendations, some findings from previous Onward research.

In 2018, we found 71% of people believe "community has declined in my lifetime"

In 2019, we found 65% would rather live in “a society that focuses on giving people more security” vs 35% for freedom


This was the basis for our identification of 'Workington Man' as the archetypal swing voter in 2019, and led us to predict (correctly) that large numbers of Red Wall seats could fall. A key driver was a desire for security, belonging and pride in place.


There is also a key regional dimension to this. We also tested people's affinity with the UK's direction of travel, across both cultural and economic dimensions - revealing the extraordinary spread below: London vs. the Rest.
https://t.co/HrorW4xaLp

You May Also Like