The so-called "learning to live with it" phase of the pandemic is the most brutal so far.
It is showing precisely who and how many our society is willing to sacrifice in the name of supposedly "returning to normal."
That is not to say earlier stages of the pandemic (and before) were without cruelty. But now there is no longer even the pretense of decency.
People openly express who they think should be excluded or made disposable so they can "get on with things" and "live their lives."
The brutality has become all too clear to disabled people, older adults, and anyone who is vulnerable. They see people in their community, or even some of their family and friends, who are unwilling to do the bare minimum to keep them safe, as though their existence is a burden.
On the broader social level, more people are dying of COVID-19 this year in Canada than in any previous year of the pandemic, while mass infection and reinfections debilitate and harm people of all ages.
The impacts of long covid are becoming a threat to every aspect of society.
As more people become infected and reinfected, and as more people have ongoing health issues related to COVID-19, they too become acceptable sacrifices and disposable.
Yet for so many, it is only after the fact they realize this unapologetic brutality could apply to them.
Any ethically oriented people looking at this situation, seeing the cruelty and a society with a set of bared fangs, are not going to be able to feel good about participating and "returning to normal."
The only thing moral people can do is turn away and resist.
The effects of this brutality are immediate and embodied for those who are made disposable, but it also has broader social and political effects.
Once these attitudes are mainstreamed, it is frightening to imagine what else can be considered acceptable and where it leads next.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The optimal subjectivity for the "learning to live with it" phase of the pandemic is not the rabid anti-masker or conspiracy theorist, but the compliant "moderate" who goes along to get along.
The greatest harm is not the bad actions of a few. It is the complacency of many.
Both of these subjectivities can be understood as forms of nihilism, and indeed nihilism has been the major social force of the pandemic.
It arises as taken-for-granted ways of understanding the world break down and uncertainty and meaningless take hold.
The active nihilist, seeing a hopeless situation they have little ability to control, lashes out. They oppose masks, vaccines, and anyone or anything attempting to do something about the virus.
In a bad situation, the active nihilist is petulant and makes things even worse.
"'Learning to live with COVID' has become a sugar-coated euphemism for the fact that the further illness and deaths of vulnerable people has become acceptable."
"Where is this 'learning'? All I see is an utter refusal to adapt any part of life to make the 'living' portion possible."
"Our lives have been deemed disposable. Inconsequential. Worthless, and blatantly so."
The failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a source of enormous disappointment and understandably leads to cynicism and despondency.
Yet the appropriate way to react to such failure is not cynicism, but a renewed commitment to principled ethical action.
It is enormously disappointing to have witnessed failure on so many levels.
Political systems and institutions failed, even those institutions whose mandate was public health. Those who presume to be leaders failed. And it must be said that everyday people have failed, as well.
In many respects, these were failures of ethics, rather than scientific or technical failures.
There has been an abdication of responsibility in the duty of care and even of common decency among people, while many of the most vulnerable have been treated as disposable.
The concerted pushback against any form of public health measures in the so-called "learning to live with it" phase of the pandemic is a reactionary movement.
Actually managing COVID-19 requires social solidarity and collective values, which pose a challenge to the status quo.
Reactionary movements typically oppose some social or political shift. They fight against change and call for a return to a previous system.
As @CoreyRobin points out in The Reactionary Mind, the change does not have to be revolutionary, simply any hint of a change in power.
At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a flourishing of social solidarity. People found ways to come together and support one another.
The paradigm that is called for by the pandemic, the only sensible way to manage the crisis, is egalitarian, inclusive, and collectivist.
The failure to adequately respond to the COVID-19 pandemic is an ethical failure and not a scientific or technical one.
An inconsistent ethical framework to guide action and policy inevitably makes things worse, which further erodes the capacity to act ethically.
One example of this ethical failure is with respect to the vaccine rollout. An ethical vaccine rollout would have prioritized those most at risk for infection and onward transmission of the virus, which in many cases are working-class and racialized communities.
However, vaccines were first made available to wealthy and privileged communities, even as these were at the lowest risk.
Similarly, on the global scale, an equitable rollout of vaccines for developing countries would have been to the benefit of all countries.
The "return to normal" in the context of COVID-19 means there are no more "restrictions," but the current approach to learning to live with it restricts everyone more.
An approach based on accessibility and inclusion would be better for everyone, not just "the vulnerable."
The current mass infection approach is an act of exclusion, first of all for what are called vulnerable people - disabled people, older adults, or anyone with compromised immune systems. It also excludes anyone who is unwilling to participate in the culture of mass infection.
Such exclusion is justified, either explicitly or implicitly, by assuming there are acceptable sacrifices of numbers of infections, hospitalization, long covid, and deaths.
The idea is that it is okay that some are excluded or sacrificed so that others can "live their life."