Oh yeah, that is an issue. I've discussed this before. I have no good answers due to social complexities, more specifically prominent presentation of suspicion breeding, territorialism when societies are under existential stress.
I've said this before, every response to cataclysmic events is a political response. Politicians are in…
Oh yeah, that is an issue. I've discussed this before. I have no good answers due to social complexities, more specifically prominent presentation of suspicion breeding, territorialism when societies are under existential stress.
I've said this before, every response to cataclysmic events is a political response. Politicians are in charge of cashflows making political processes a critical, gating element of response. The problem with this system is democratic processes slowing response tempo and tactical focus.
As far as history records, a fundamental tenet of society has been the preservation of life. Pre-govt individual members of society accepted a personal, social responsibility to share food, housing education, caring for the ill, and elder members of social groups. Governance and politics has been that means to organize society assuring the execution of social tenets. Elements in modern govt (through election sponsorships and personal gain) are more open to preserving productive portions of society vs other deemed as a social burden (eg. on the dole). Then others are more "traditional/conservative" elements wanting to preserve life as a means to remain in power. Then there are members of society with expectations govt will protect their interests like staying alive, having available food, housing and a working health care system. This last segment of society is where democratic and parliamentary govts worry. Please note, what is usually considered "liberal" political ideology is actually the traditional sense of governance and personal social responsibility. The common conservative political ideology is a aberration and some may considered a defect compared to traditional social tenets and values (morality).
Political compromise is a critical part of all govts. And compromise is a part of, in this case, pandemic response. Conflicts arise when ideological priorities are unrecognized, under mediated, or unwilling accept collective agreements. The inability to accept mediated agreements may be considered a form of sociopathy, placing other lives at at risk for abstract ideologies. The question must be asked, is ones ideology worth more than the life of your child or grandchild ? If you answer ideology is more important than your child's life, many would question senses of empathy, sympathy, social responsibility and whether one is treating a person's life as an object, which I believe is considered a symptom of sociopathic mental disorders.
We also tend to compare lab experimental conditions with the real world. This is a dangerous approach when dealing with the natural world. The number of unaccounted pathways for infection and mutagenesis often result in unexpected outcomes. Politicians try to recreate lab conditions in society, where immutable barriers have somehow become aspirational in social settings. But, it's all we really have at this point. As new/better treatments emerge and the virus culls the population (to survivors with natural defenses), our response to pathogen threats will improve. Remember this is the first time in history we can track a pathogen's progress with precision. We will learn which methods are best placed based on evolution of other interventions ( pharmaceuticals at this point).
The situation is complex with no clear best answers. The only way to understand a way forward is contextualizing the big picture, whether you want a society based on a pure economic value of people (as exploitable resources) or a more traditional, conservative society with a sense of personal responsibility focused on tenets to preserve people's lives.
Oh yeah, that is an issue. I've discussed this before. I have no good answers due to social complexities, more specifically prominent presentation of suspicion breeding, territorialism when societies are under existential stress.
I've said this before, every response to cataclysmic events is a political response. Politicians are in charge of cashflows making political processes a critical, gating element of response. The problem with this system is democratic processes slowing response tempo and tactical focus.
As far as history records, a fundamental tenet of society has been the preservation of life. Pre-govt individual members of society accepted a personal, social responsibility to share food, housing education, caring for the ill, and elder members of social groups. Governance and politics has been that means to organize society assuring the execution of social tenets. Elements in modern govt (through election sponsorships and personal gain) are more open to preserving productive portions of society vs other deemed as a social burden (eg. on the dole). Then others are more "traditional/conservative" elements wanting to preserve life as a means to remain in power. Then there are members of society with expectations govt will protect their interests like staying alive, having available food, housing and a working health care system. This last segment of society is where democratic and parliamentary govts worry. Please note, what is usually considered "liberal" political ideology is actually the traditional sense of governance and personal social responsibility. The common conservative political ideology is a aberration and some may considered a defect compared to traditional social tenets and values (morality).
Political compromise is a critical part of all govts. And compromise is a part of, in this case, pandemic response. Conflicts arise when ideological priorities are unrecognized, under mediated, or unwilling accept collective agreements. The inability to accept mediated agreements may be considered a form of sociopathy, placing other lives at at risk for abstract ideologies. The question must be asked, is ones ideology worth more than the life of your child or grandchild ? If you answer ideology is more important than your child's life, many would question senses of empathy, sympathy, social responsibility and whether one is treating a person's life as an object, which I believe is considered a symptom of sociopathic mental disorders.
We also tend to compare lab experimental conditions with the real world. This is a dangerous approach when dealing with the natural world. The number of unaccounted pathways for infection and mutagenesis often result in unexpected outcomes. Politicians try to recreate lab conditions in society, where immutable barriers have somehow become aspirational in social settings. But, it's all we really have at this point. As new/better treatments emerge and the virus culls the population (to survivors with natural defenses), our response to pathogen threats will improve. Remember this is the first time in history we can track a pathogen's progress with precision. We will learn which methods are best placed based on evolution of other interventions ( pharmaceuticals at this point).
The situation is complex with no clear best answers. The only way to understand a way forward is contextualizing the big picture, whether you want a society based on a pure economic value of people (as exploitable resources) or a more traditional, conservative society with a sense of personal responsibility focused on tenets to preserve people's lives.