Two competing truths about the coronavirus
Today's world of Covid realities has a new and present-day dilemma aside from that of strictly health implications. This is a time that requires every bit of our active reasoning to navigate through a plethora of theories and opinions. Families and subsets of the communities are grappling with simply what to believe, to the extent of questioning whether the Covid disease is man-made, thus specifically created, and whose purpose was not just to jeopardise health, but to disrupt the economy as a bioweapon.
Therefore, to resist any social methods that seem to assist that objective of shutting down the economy is seen as the virtuous thing to do. Opposite to that are those who look purely at the health and risk of being harmed themselves — or their family and community — by a disease that can kill, if not leave its victims with long-term health complications.
Anything that can be done to prevent harm, even if that means shutting down the economy, is the right thing to do. We all accept that Anthony Fauci is a virologist, but in this cross debate, he is framed as either the saint or the devil.
It is reasonable today to conclude the Covid-19 virus was in an enhanced form that somehow escaped a laboratory late 2019. The sophistication of this virus at the starting point of human contact was very advanced and came out of the starting blocks as a highly contagious killer — far swifter than the normal speed of other viruses that have moved from the animal kingdom to humans, and then only gradually mutated before becoming as lethal.
So let’s follow the proposition that this virus was man-made to be an efficient, lethal killer, and its subsequent contact with the human family is truly as effective as a hazard whether it is an accident or deliberate.
If we can establish some basic tools with which to examine the separate natures of the two aspects of the virus debate. Whether the virus is a bioweapon to disrupt the economy as one premise of the debate, or the virus as a health concern that needs to be addressed as another side to be discussed. Keeping the two aspects as separate subjects helps to provide specificity for each.
At the moment, the two issues that are conflated where persons considering political motivations will defy health considerations because of a moral stance against what they perceive as political positions and health remedies weaponised to take away livelihoods.
Let's all be physicists for a moment, which would be a useful vantage point because we can then handle two competing truths at once.
Can we agree that getting the economy going depends on containing the virus? And the very existence of an unsafe work environment without regard for the potency of the virus’s ability to spread will guarantee a surge in the epidemic?
For those who are young and healthy, they may ask, why punish us? Let us work. The chances are we will survive. Agreeably, that is a rational consideration and measures to accommodate them should be explored. The problem is while the great majority can survive, the efficiency of the virus as a spreader, cold lead to the young, could quickly becoming a vector population.
The problem with that scenario is if there is a huge vector population, the unwell and senior population will invariably die or suffer — and that scenario is a recipe for a euthanasia bomb.
Which introduces the next subject of vaccination: There are those also who believe the real pandemic is the vaccine, not the virus. Stated clearer, the belief is the pandemic was created to vaccinate in order to kill more people through a vaccination regime.
That indeed would be a clever strategy — if it were true — to create a problem and then kill the patients by offering a cure or solution for a deliberately created problem. Without discounting that hypothesis, we would still have accepted that the disease, even if created, must be lethal enough to kill. The resulting first question is, how can the global population defend against a disease they know to be manufactured to kill? Also, if scientifically created as a weapon, and if those scientists have any smarts, would they make a bioweapon so weak as that it could be destroyed by sunlight and natural supplements?
This is a critical question because with at least 170 years of history on known epidemics met with attempts at a cure, the only medical answer has been a vaccine. But in our age, the question has been met with scepticism and spurious comments — from taking vitamin D to hydroxychloroquine. But nothing to date that has been used, even militantly, by any sample groups in the West, has demonstrated a safety procedure against being infected with Covid.
Not oddly, but as a example, many persons knew nothing of hydroxychloroquine until Donald Trump advocated for its use a year ago. Ironically, he caught Covid after admitting to taking the drug, but was cured not by it but rather by antiviral treatments while in the hospital. There is no country in the world that has more natural products than Brazil, along with folk medicine, but the death and infection rate there is like that of the United States when the virus was out of control. Now there is sample data coming out of India where the use of a parasitical drug used for animals such as horses is said to curb Covid infection, but little data on harmful consequences.
Does it matter at all as imperical data that the US, which was the worst of the nations affected in the world, has now changed that trajectory because of a single factor — a vaccine? Juxtapose that to India, which was near free from Covid but then burst on to the world scene with record deaths and record daily infections. Again for the opposite reason, it has no vaccine.
This exercise of reason cuts across theories and posits the simple questions of what can the individual do to protect themselves from catching Covid-19? How should society entertain the reality of a virus that can kill if not can significantly harm the vulnerable in the population?
Unless we can be satisfied with the notion that the virus is fake simply because it was man-made. Or that it is not as lethal as reported and all the seeming deaths and fuss is all a massive orchestration. Or we accept that, perhaps yes, it is lethal but only for some — let life go on for those who can withstand its harm, as in only the strong survive. Or we take the position to forget the vaccine, the mask, the social distancing and allow herd immunity to weed out what would be a survivor population.
Those who believe the virus is a bioweapon are entitled to their views. I will take at the same time the cautious position that it may have been an accident that caused its spread. I will continue with that caution to say the virus is real, it is lethal, and persons and society must take strong precautionary measures to minimise death and harm — because it will not suddenly disappear and will continue to cause harm.
I would also add that if it is not the present vaccines that will be the cure, then it will be another. But for sure it will be a vaccine and not a health supplement that ultimately protects society.