There's an idea with alarming currency which suggests that young people, who are less likely to suffer and die with Covid, should not have their lives "put on hold", and older and more vulnerable folk should hide away while the young get on and go about their business.
/1
/1
That this idea is still given credence - eg @bbcnickrobinson put it to the WHO Europe fella today on R4 - makes me feel sick.
What kind of society needs reminding that we each have a duty to protect our parents, our families, and the wider community?
/2
What kind of society needs reminding that we each have a duty to protect our parents, our families, and the wider community?
/2
Because the point isn't that the young are safer; that's only half the story. The other half is that what they might spread is massively, cataclysmically lethal.
In no other circumstance would we defend lethal behaviour on the basis of the individual's own comparative safety.
/3
In no other circumstance would we defend lethal behaviour on the basis of the individual's own comparative safety.
/3
Just as we would not allow drink-driving, even if the drink-driver were safe inside a tank.
In society we forego "freedoms" all the time, particularly those which endanger the lives of others.
We don't run amok - because cooperation works. It benefits us all.
/4
In society we forego "freedoms" all the time, particularly those which endanger the lives of others.
We don't run amok - because cooperation works. It benefits us all.
/4
A week is a long time in a young life. A summer is forever. But let's not add to their frustrations by suggesting that restrictions are generationally unfair.
/5
/5
Instead, let's remind the young that, in a good society, we look out for each other. It's not something to be indignant or angry about. It's something to be proud of.
And let's remind them that, in a good society - hopefully - the young grow old.
/6 end
And let's remind them that, in a good society - hopefully - the young grow old.
/6 end
