AN ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP

It was refreshing to read the views of Dr Ivor Browne in today’s Irish independent. At 93 years of age he has a terrific attitude about death, personal responsibility and living life which we could all learn from. He is a retired psychiatrist with a history of not being afraid to challenge the convention of the day. As a spritely 93 year old with vast experience in mental health our newly formed government would do worse than entertain his views.

So far this year 29M people have died worldwide. 500,000 of those have died from COVID-19. On may 20^ththis year there had been 320,000 deaths worldwide from COVID-19. Within the same period 3.1M people died of cancer, 5M from all communicable diseases and 1.9M from the effects of smoking. Suicide and mental health issues will only fully manifest themselves over time but nevertheless will be a consequence of the lockdown.

Governments across the western world addressed the Pandemic by doing two things. They handed the running of their countries over to their health authorities and they wrote cheques for money they didn’t have, to as many of their citizens as they could, encouraging them to stay at home. This in the short term kept the masses quiet and meant that all other problems relating to every other aspect of their responsibilities were shelved indefinitely.

The protesting, rioting and looting that took place in major cities all over the world as a result of the murder of George Floyd was facilitated by this void of leadership. To be clear the police officer who murdered him is guilty as hell and should be dealt with accordingly. My purpose in raising this is only to emphasize the consequences of absent leadership and also to show how it may have exposed the folly of certain measures such as social distancing.

Apart from genuine protesters there were sinister forces that took advantage of the circumstance to just disrupt and destroy. The speed with which they were mobilized and the availability of bricks, crowbars and other weapons that could be used to attack the police and destroy property was well funded and professionally coordinated.

The fact that you had large groups who were out of control roaming the streets in this manner with no impact on the virus calls into question not only the strategy but the failure to take ownership of the problem in the first place which in turn facilitated the lawlessness that came with these demonstrations.

A governments role should be to give leadership particularly in a time of crisis. Having abdicated that responsibility in mid march they are now trying to manage the opening up of their economies which requires them to take back control from the various health authorities. Meanwhile there has been a breakdown in society with demonstrations and protests getting out of control. This has been fuelled on one side by the absence of leadership from our political leaders and on the other by well funded but highly organized groups who are looking to destroy our democracy for their own political gain.

The void of leadership which was left during the past 3 months has allowed the situation to be influenced by a variety of stakeholders with different agendas. These range from the health spokespeople who are enjoying their moment in the sunshine and not keen to give it up to the radical groups who would like to disrupt our democracies and have other power related agendas. In between there are myriad groups with their own agendas.

On April 3^rd Dr. Scott Jensen a US Senator who has been practising medicine for over 40 years received from the state dept. of health a directive to medical practitioners advising them how to account for COVID-19 deaths and encouraging them to account for deaths as COVID-19 where at all possible. On further investigation he discovered that hospitals were being rewarded for coding any death as COVID-19. For example a death by pneumonia was worth 4.600 dollars whereas a COVID-19 death was worth 13,000 dollars and if a ventilator was used it was worth 39.000 dollars. When Dr. Jensen went public with this information he was rubbished but USA Today on investigating the matter themselves confirmed Dr. Jensen’s findings. This is a good example of how money and politics can corrupt. 

The statistics are presented in a way which is designed to keep the anxiety levels high. For instance they talk of a spike in cases as various places open up. What they don’t say is that there is no spike in deaths and that the spike in cases seems to be in the younger age groups which is a good thing. We need to people to get it in order to kill it. Remember 98.3% of people who get the virus will have either very mild or no symptoms. The death rates are falling as a result of younger people getting it and also because many of the older people who were going to die from it have already done so.

Had the politicians kept control of the situation at the outset they might have been able to factor in the broad range of considerations that are important whilst still putting the necessary emphasis on what was clearly a major crisis. The initial lockdown was reasonable but after the first few weeks once it became clear that the health facilities were not going to be overrun they could have reviewed their strategy whilst still putting sufficient emphasis on the most vulnerable.

We will never know what might have been had they kept control of the situation and taken advice from the health authorities rather than handing them the reins. 

If one becomes one dimensional, avoids the tough decisions and doesn’t take charge of a problem in the beginning it generally gets worse. I contend that politicians across the world sidestepped the issues by referring everything to the medical fraternity.

So far we can only speculate as to the consequences of doing this but we are about to find out as countries open up and are forced to face the consequences. Will the deaths from other causes prove more severe than the virus? Will the knock on effect of the economic fallout be more severe than the virus? Will the damage to our society have a lasting and damaging effect?

We don’t know but there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that they should open up our societies and our economies quickly and not this slow drawn out approach that is only going to increase the number of casualties.

My chief concern at this stage is the lasting damage to how we socially interact with each other in every aspect of our daily lives and an erosion of our freedoms through authoritarian overreach. We are social creatures by nature but during this pandemic we have developed an unhealthily cautious suspicion of each other. When we see somebody approaching us we  become suspicious and are inclined to move away and avoid them wondering could they infect us or are they afraid we might infect them?

People are reprimanding each other in their mind and some are reporting each other for transgressions. The trickle down power that goes with an atmosphere such as this manifests itself with people suddenly having a level of power to query basic functions such as how far apart we stand or asking us to wear a mask before being allowed to enter an establishment.

These don’t seem like much when you say them but they all erode the natural ability we have to interact with each other. They also get taken up by people who like the idea of exerting control and justify it by convincing themselves it will make the situation better to implement such controls.

What we don’t want to happen is what happened post 9/11 where security measures were brought in which have never been relaxed despite everyone knowing that they achieve nothing.

It happens all too easily and once various stakeholders become involved, all with different agendas but allied to a common purpose it doesn’t go away. Airport security is a glaring example. Once politicians implemented it initially the usual suspects all climbed aboard, from the bureaucrats who want to administer it to the airport authorities who see revenue opportunities to the retailers who seek a captive audience to the taxman who wants his share and before you know it one can’t unravel it.

Ask yourself are people more honest over the past 30 years? No. Has society become more violent? Yes. Is the regard for human life less than it was? Yes. So more rules and less freedoms equals what? Not progress in terms of society. People regard rules as obstacles to avoid. There’s no moral value to anything because personal responsibility has been so eroded.

It is only in the last 200 years that ordinary people have had any real freedom or the financial capacity to make choices and have options in their lives. This is a blip in time in terms of the history of mankind. Prior to that if you weren’t royalty or the equivalent you had a short life span during which success was survival. It wouldn’t take much to go back to a world where the masses were controlled by a dominant few using mind control and technology rather than armies of enforcers.

As we exit this pandemic we must do everything we can to insure that we don’t end up with more rules and regulations which tell us when we can go shopping or impose even further checks when accessing or egressing offices, stadiums, theatres or airports. Most of all they must not try to impose tracking under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. The idea that tracking helps has been debunked by many experts on the basis that once the virus has spread beyond a small group tracking becomes ineffective.

It’s a good example of how government can insidiously encroach on our lives and obtain power through fear without any real benefit to us. Meanwhile the cost to us is the loss of our personal liberties?

Our newly formed government has a wonderful opportunity to make a fresh start and embrace the challenges that we are presented with as a result of the last 3 months. We need the type of thinking offered by Dr. Browne to be applied to some of these challenges. Be brave. Be bold and allow people to take personal responsibility and they will.