This is a very hard one. I was incredibly shaken by a couple of such experiences recently.
I think to get through this disaster you need to look after yourself, find the support of and in turn support, those who understand. Because we're in this for the long haul.
(1/6)
As much as we want to save our friends, we need to figure out quickly if they can be helped and how much effort it will take to do it, and what the emotional cost will be for ourselves.
I can only offer my own approach here.
(2/6)
This is my view:
You can only help people through compassion*.
Your capacity for compassion is not limitless.
What you need to find in the other person is a compassion for others.
*Unless there is some kind of personal gain that is motivating you.
(3/6)
This is necessary for them to change and for you to keep persevering with them.
In many situations, you can start with them having compassion for you.
Here however the stakes are much higher and you need to start with compassion for others.
(4/6)
If despite your best efforts, they cannot have compassion for those who have died, the bereaved, those who have lost their health (these are the undeniable losses); if they dismiss these as acceptable in any way, if they keep going 'yes, but...', that's where I give up.
(5/6)
For all that people may want to point to other factors and other consequences, the truth is that everything else has followed from failing to control the pandemic.
That this somehow remains contentious is one of the most depressing aspects of this disaster.
(6/6)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 'Living with' COVID-19: why do we have to & what is it going to be like?
(TL;DR: because that's what our leaders have led us to & it'll be a bit like what things are like now in the UK and Sweden, only a lot worse.)
Longer answer ⬇️
(1/30)
'Living with the virus' is not going to be for everyone. One major group it won't work very well for are those who will die from* the virus (conservative estimate- in the region of 40,000 every year in the UK)
*if you're going to say 'with', this isn't the 🧵 for you.
(2/30)
It will mean living with ongoing infections and their short and long term consequences, for health and for the rest of life. In case there is any doubt, COVID-19 is not an infection you want to catch, it is definitely not one that you would want your child to catch.
(3/30)
🧵 COVID-19 and being overwhelmed by moral outrage and moral injury*:
(Because a lot of us are)
This is about the recurrent feelings of horror, disbelief, sadness, helplessness & anger in response to the callousness & cruelty we continue to see during the pandemic.
(1/18)
The majority of us (I'd like to think) share important ethical values & standards that we believe should guide how we & our leaders handle a disaster like the pandemic. These include:
-We should prioritise life & health for everyone.
-We should protect our kids
(2/18)
-We should protect our most vulnerable (CEV, the disabled, the elderly, the poor, etc)
-We should try to look after and help all our fellow humans, everywhere.
These are all 'as much as possible' values & standards i.e. you aim to do the most you can.
Survival mode can be thought of as a state of living in which managing each day takes pretty much all the capacity you have. And by the time you are in survival mode, you're already working with a significantly depleted capacity.
(1/12)
You can end up in survival mode because: 1. The demands on you have been heavy and unrelenting and have exhausted your spare capacity. 2. Your capacity has been diminished by illness/stress* (mental or physical). 3. A combination of both of the above over time.
(2/12)
In reality often things may start with either 1 or 2 but then over time the other one will get involved so you end up with 3 anyway.
* Re: stress, it's important to consider environmental stresses including poverty, precarity and discrimination (ableism, racism, etc).
(3/12)
It's a part response as it's going to be about how to think about the MH impacts and not actual numbers. I've only cursorily followed the research measuring the impact of the pandemic on mental health and mental illness, and in any case, I'd like to take a different tack.
(2/n)
I'm going to try and walk you through how I'd usually think about the impact of a difficult event/experience on a person, if I was seeing them in clinic. This hopefully sets up the approach I'm going to be taking and perspectives I'm going to try and cover.
(3/n)
🧵Some reflections on the responses to this thread👇
This is about some of the criticisms I received for this thread. This is not meant to be a massive subtweet, apologies if it feels like it. I think that some of the points raised were worth airing and addressing.
(1/30)
1. A fair few people took 'the people in power' to mean the government. I certainly do include the govt in this category but it's not just the government. There are a lot of powerful players who are not part of the govt and we have known about them for a long time.
(2/30)
A COVID example: the Koch Brothers, AIER and GBD (check out @NafeezAhmed's work for @BylineTimes)
Even if we don't consider this, we know that our current UK government has a lot of wealthy people who we know are serving their own interests while in govt.
(3/30)
'I hear what you're saying but remember there are two sides to every story.'
🧵 'Two sides to every story' is a common technique used to dismiss victims.
Actually there are as many sides to a story as there are involved parties.
(1/8)
However, the more important point is: 'How many sides have you listened to?'
Because 'two sides' is used in multiple ways: 1. To refuse to hear other sides. 2. To stop other sides being voiced by implying the person is vexatious, unreliable or has malicious intentions.
(2/8)
3. To make clear that the speaker has decided on which side they favour/believe- they are either not going to listen to the other side or will make no attempt to reconcile the accounts. 4. To imply that you have been mistaken in some way or misunderstood what happened.
(3/8)