1. The prevailing discourse surrounding mitigating against SARS-CoV-2 infection is rife with false dichotomies. At a societal level, the most obvious of these is the notion that mitigation measures stand in opposition to economic growth, when, in fact, the opposite is true:
2. Mitigation measures - specifically widespread air filtration or purification - would increase economic growth, by virtue of reducing ill health in the workforce (implementing widespread passive mitigations would also increase operational resilience to future pandemics).
3. Likewise, at a personal level, the prevailing false dichotomy is that mitigating against infection is incompatible with human flourishing. This is also not the case, on two levels:
4. First, getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 as few times as possible is a net positive for increasing lifespan and healthspan, both key elements - obviously - of increasing human flourishing (it astounds me this is not discussed more in the longevity community).
5. Second, the prevailing idea that personally mitigating against infection is incompatible with human connection is also false. This false dichotomy is a slippery one, because it tacitly and narrowly defines human connection as 'eating and drinking in indoor public spaces'.
6. Human connection is so much more than that (a fact I discovered when I quit drinking in 2007). Speaking personally, I have never been more connected with such a diverse group of wonderful human beings than I am now.
7. Another prevailing false dichotomy is centred around absolutism / all-or-nothing thinking. That is to say, conceptualising mitigations as either present or not, rather than recognising that mitigations exist on a spectrum of risk. Risk cannot be reduced to zero.
8. Communicating in a nuanced fashion - difficult in today's political environment - is, in my opinion, key to dismantling all of these false dichotomies regarding mitigations.
/end
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
