Posts
Ethical views on Covid-19&20
The future world/country management of Covid-19 is an
opportunity for practicing ethical Swarmship. The choices are:
i) restrain movements/activities OR
ii) focus on the treatment.
Of course, one tends to say that we need both, but this is
false depending on who you are. If you are a parent, your ethical choice is to
protect yourself and your children from any risk of contamination. That is an ethical choice supporting (i), the
restriction of movements. If you are a governmental decider, the ethical choice
is not the same. By choosing to restrain movement, one brings the economy to
slow down significantly, as it has already started. This will be a source of important
sufferings and violence worldwide, which by far will go beyond the sufferings associated
with 2% mortality caused by Covid-19. By focusing on treatment, you might have
the impression that you allow the infection to spread but Covid-19 is so
infectious that, similar to Influenza, controlling its spread is not possible,
only reducing individual risk of infection (ex. hand disinfection, masks,
individual behavioral changes) is possible. IA quarantine might have been
possible at the very beginning when less than 100 individuals were infected in
one location, but it is by far not possible anymore.
By choosing to focus solely on treatment and individual
hygiene, you avoid a significant economical collapse, which is in itself
positive for health globally. The issue is that it takes political courage to
take this ethical choice, and most politicians do not have that political
courage as their very existence depends on being liked. Nevertheless, the
ethical question is should one be seen as trying to stop a virus that will
cause 2% mortality but as a collateral generate an economic collapse, which
will cause far more damage that a 2 % mortality or should politicians focus on
treatment and personal hygiene? Politically speaking, not having done
everything to stop Covid-19 spread might be seen so politically incorrect,
especially by those who will be directly or indirectly affected by family’s and
friend’s mortality. To be able to say “we have done everything to stop the
viral spread within our country” is a protection against populism backlash,
even if the politicians knew that it was impossible to achieve and that indeed
economic collapse was the real threat. As for the economic collapse,
politicians will be able to argue that this economic collapse is just a
consequence of having tried to stop the spread of the infection and, of course,
they will be excused. Yet, the ethical decision is clear. Will it be taken? I
very much doubt so, even with all the biological facts, because we are not the
fact-based society we like to pretend to be: the lack of management of the global
warming crisis comes to mind. Yet, should a misinformed public opinion based on
fear be the driver? Should not, but remember we were not able to stop Brexit.
The future will tell if this time we learned, or how long it will take to
learn.
