Walking whilst ill

I noticed recently a sticker on a local bus stop, which was commenting on COVID testing and the need for vaccinations. It was defaced so difficult to read, but there were a couple of interesting ideas.

Firstly, the authors questioned the existence of COVID because it was not visible – especially the asymptomatic kind which the government is particularly keen to test for. However, most diseases are not visible in the early stages when most can be done – cancer is a good example, and its invisibility is part of its deadly nature. Huge diagnostic machines – CT scanners, MRIs, X-rays -have been created to make the invisible, visible. And some of these machines have been used to diagnose COVID. Most mental illnesses are invisible and therefore not considered as important or as legitimate as physical illnesses although they can be as deadly.

Secondly, the writers likened the pressure to vaccinate to blackmail. I wondered if most medical treatment carries an element of blackmail; ‘take this drug, let us operate, have this test or you will get sicker, not recover/die.’ Sort of ‘behave or else’. I experienced this recently where I was going through the process of consent to have a biopsy on a brain tumour. I hesitated as the operation sounded dangerous and a more senior doctor was drafted in to persuade me. He frowned and said I only had a few more weeks – I signed the forms and thankfully I am still here.

But vaccination is different because although it affects you it also contributes to the well-being of the community and the safety of others. By refusing the vaccination, are you refusing your community as well? Not just strangers you might meet at the bus stop or on the bus, but your friends, relatives and work colleagues. This might explain the anger expressed in biro on the sticker, rejecting its message.

Journalists and scientists complain that the public will believe any old conspiracy theory. This concern reaches panic levels if the internet and children are involved. Most of the people I know treat scare stories with a fair amount of cynicism, including those originating from journalists (who have to sell papers) and scientists (who have to get grants).

Are these experts worried about their waning level of authority? Are these warnings about such concerns as climate change, COVID etc… keeping us in line with scientific and media orthodoxies, and maintaining their authority? Many, including me, suspect that some of their pronouncements are more about power than knowledge. Although both are interlinked. Perhaps we are witnessing the end of the age of enlightenment where objective measurement and science trumped all other explanations.

What is a ‘post truth’ society’? What is a post truth? A lie? Are the promoters of this concept suggesting that there was once a golden age of ‘truth’? When does a truth become a post truth? When we disagree with something, does news become fake? Is the cynicism that greet scare stories part of the problem of the failure to act? If we no longer believe in anyone or anything, how do we decide what to do? Or do we follow our unexamined reactions, meaning that new directions are not followed? Does this mean we are doomed to respond to emergencies only when the stark realities of our existence intrude into our comfortable lives?