You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
Public health is beyond politics. No political ideology will keep us protected or immune from the current virus. Practical measures of keeping safe distances and isolating the elderly from the outside will reduce the risk of contracting the virus.
It is very disturbing that opinion makers in the media think that the whole system of keeping safe distances, of not going out if it is not necessary and not attending large gatherings is to protect the elderly at the expense of youth, jobs and the economy.
Symptoms of the virus are mild and most people will recover. Without having access to the official data, for those who do contract the virus, the results may well be fatal. True, the elderly are most vulnerable to the virus resulting in fatal outcomes. It has also been reported that babies, children, adults have succumbed to the virus. It is also true that people with comorbid conditions such as asthma and cystic fibrosis to name a few ailments, may have a higher degree of suffering. So the disease is not experienced by the elderly.
Then we also have to consider our indigenous brothers and sisters who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill, especially those over the age of 50. One of the consequences is that if elders succumb to the disease, it results in a loss of passing the particular indigenous nation's culture to the rest of the "mob".
Not only the above groups, but also people with a disability being vulnerable to the virus, which may be due to people being forgotten, neglected or abused, source, https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/people-with-disability-need-virus-support-c-764428.
The economy is the people and without the people there is no economy regardless of age group, culture or disability.
However if strong measures to prevent the risk of contracting the virus are not undertaken, that is let the virus "rip", there would be no people and no economy.
A school friend of mine's father had this simple analogy when a member of his family was involved in a serious car accident, such that it is "...easier to replace the car but not a person...."
We could also say the same of the economy, We can easily replace the economy but not the people who passed away.
It is true that in the history of economic downturns either through a downturn in economic activity or a downturn imposed by health measures, there have always been people losing jobs, businesses and people self harming (if you have a problem, contact Lifeline on 13-11-14). You can read stories about the 1929 downturn or even during the land baloon boom of the 1890s in Melbourne.
It is true that stories of businesses unable to pay the rent due to a lack of walking traffic past their business. We've also heard landlords dog headedly not wanting to negotiate. Both landlord and tennant lose if an agreement cannot be reached on hibernating for the duration of the crisis. Note I am not talking about rorting and exploiting the opporunity to reduce rent when the rent can be paid when the business or residential tennant has the capacity to pay.
We've also learned to be human by providing social services beyond the "sustenance" payment. In this crisis, our Federal Government has been assisting businesses to pay its employees. True not all the cracks of who will or not receive a benefit can be filled. But there is some kind of safety net available even if it is not to the level that the affected person is accustomed to before the crisis.
This creeping 'utilitarianism' in our culture of who is of most value to the state or economy is morally repugnant. Economies can be replaced but lives cannot. People need to be more human and not ruthless during a crisis. It has been demonstrated by our Federal Government implementing safety nets.
The media may well benefit from creating controversy by attracting readers, listeners or viewers. Controversial utilitarian comments are welcome in the discourse but should not dutifully adopted because it's evil.
Thank you,
Anthony of thinking Belfield