Our generation, and obviously the millennials, have had no previous contemplation of what is currently unfolding in our world. War stories of the past century were just that, and they have slowly dissipated from our memories. 9/11 was a massive dent and a reminder that we cannot take our enlighted lives for granted, and so was the financial crisis. But what we are facing now appears to become much worse, as it will alter our societies for good and truly push us to the brink of economic and financial destruction.
We have lived in times when risks were hard to take and loss of life unacceptable. And all of a sudden, Italian doctors are forced to make decisions about which 80-year is to live and which one is to be left to his or her own fate. People in Europe and America who have gotten so used to and on every occasion insisted on their personal freedom and individual rights are being confined to potentially small spaces that are their homes, along with all the ensuing chances of deteriorating human interactions amid families.
Politicians have acted globally, and they are far from done. Trillions of dollars and -equivalents are being designated to catch that falling economic knife, to bail out literally everybody whatever the cost, or so at least some Europeans have claimed. Such measures are entirely unprecedented and an idealistic attempt to financially bridge the world into times when the virus threat is expected to subside again. The scary issue is that nobody can know when this will be the case.
In other words, we have entered an inexorable race against time. Will we be able to sustain lock-downs of entire cities and countries until the crisis eases up and people can go after their lives as before? Is it even conceivable that things will go back to the old ways? Or will we run out of our collective capacities to stem the tide before such time? Again, the precedent of the financial crisis is of no use, as this time it is not just about bailing out the financial system but everyone and everything.
Most politicians are naturally driven by the politically and humanly right thing to do, and that is to save the lives of every citizen. They instinctively know that none of their peers would ever survive a deviation from that line. The problem with this notion is that by doing so they inevitably gamble with the core of our economic foundations and risk a global depression that could eventually pale the 1930s and bring about unimaginable suffering to the globe, worse than the coronavirus.
Also, or maybe that being a function of it, occasions in history on which politicians managed to avoid being behind the curve are far and between. And to be honest, it is getting boring to listen to them regurgitating their self-righteous lines about what needs to be demanded and done for the ever-lasting good of the people. Everybody seems to be stuck in the status quo and either lacks the guts or the foresight to start thinking through and debating what comes next.
We should be very clear on one thing… If the warm weather theory doesn’t work to get at least some relief, the world will face a scenario where the total shutdowns of our lives will end up being an ongoing affair until a vaccine is developed, something that according to serious virologists will not happen within the next 12 months. Equally clear is that this status quo cannot be upheld for such a period, neither from a social nor from an economic perspective.
Curiously and unexpectedly, on one of the German political
talk shows (from 33:00 for our German speakers) on the weekend, an otherwise reticent virologist broke the ice. She said it was imperative to start a debate about de-escalation of the measures sooner rather than later, as they were nowhere near sustainable for another year. This needed to be done among a variety of experts who still very much disagree on how to approach this. There was no simple solution to it.
However, while insisting that the older generation needed to be protected in a feasible manner, she left the option open to have the rest of society to return to their lives not to sacrifice the whole of society. Unfortunately, or maybe deliberately, her clearly sensitive point was quickly brushed over, and the iterative discussion quickly resumed to how the government could support the economy, flatten the ominous curve of new infections, and make sure sufficient medical equipment was to be supplied.
The virologist was caught looking on in what could easily be described as disbelief (41:06). Her point was the right one to raise, no matter whether the establishment wants to hear it or debate it or not. Undoubtedly, all the prominently occupied high ground of human transcendency will come crumbling down as soon as it transpires that we will not be able to afford to look after everyone. And it is entirely legitimate to demand a debate about what will happen then, and what options will be left on the table.
Herd-immunisation came up, as much as the concept has been frowned upon ever since Boris Johnson’s advisors allegedly introduced this as a strategy for the UK before the prime minister u-turned as it became politically untenable. But what else is out there? The German lady virologist’s hint may be the politically incorrect thing to even contemplate, but it was presented as level-headed as can be. Protect the elderly, but save society and economy from demise. This is not cruel. This is human.
Chances, however, are that it will be too late, as always. In a couple of months, the health crisis might not have subsided as hoped for, and we might well have run out of our financial means. In such a case, chaos would be prescribed, and much worse damage ensue as a result. Crisis management is not likely to be the forte of the majority of politicians, particularly not those who have either never lived through a real crisis or are of a generation that just doesn’t know what they dealing with.
