A Different World
Lockdown has brought with it the realisation that, for all our privileged existence, there are aspects of the way we live that we must change, if we are to continue having any quality of life. Though they present major challenges, the current restrictions also offer un-looked for opportunities to consider that a different world is possible.
I don’t find that the lockdown restrictions so far imposed have yet changed my daily routines or expectations radically; except perhaps to bring with them the beneficial awareness that yes, I can go for walks, and so I should make the most of that. Because I am only allowed to venture out once a day – though again, that is not such a change from my usual limitations – I find myself rejoicing when I do: official restrictions have made me very grateful and appreciative of the freedoms I enjoy.
Perhaps we will all have to re-frame or curb our notions of what we have grown used to, but the end result is that we are usually more appreciative of what we have.
The season, and the weather, are especially lovely at the moment, the routes are calm and quiet, and I can hear loud birdsong in the bushes that, un-tended, have been left to flourish. They are that shade of almost painfully bright, light green that makes me breathless.
Robins chirping loudly, blackbirds flitting and warbling, song thrushes trilling, do remind me what an invasion our usual motor vehicle noise is. The fresh green grass and the bright and blue skies unmarked by vapour trails remind me, too, that we must find ways to share the world so as not to destroy it.
We can do this, and we must. So I’m grateful for what I have and look forward to a quieter, more equitable way of living when lockdown restrictions are eased.
Thanks for reading.
Please share:
May 18, 2020
Doing everything they can
Fran Macilvey Fran Macilvey, Uncategorized 0 Comments
Doing everything they can
The standard accepted narrative in public is that the governments of the world are doing everything they can in the face of unprecedented threat, to tackle the Covid / economic emergency. And for those ahead of the curve – China, South Korea, New Zealand, Iceland – it does seem as if their quick and decisive action early on, their willingness to heed the signs and act on them fast, has helped these countries to get back to something like a new normal relatively soon.
But what about governments that fail to take heed? There are a few obvious examples: Brazil, Belarus, The USA Federal Government… Our Westminster Government failed to act early when it saw the crisis unfolding in January this year and spreading with startling rapidity. If I can see this happening in December as I check in every morning for my news update on my phone, it is fatuous of any government to claim that they “didn’t realise”. In fact, the evidence is increasingly that not only did they realise, but they pretended not to, downgraded the threat and tried to believe, as all scared children will, that if they put their heads under the covers, the monster in the room would not see them and go away.
But surely, with all the resources at its call, the government really should have seen this crisis coming and could have taken decisive action earlier. And arguably, their failure to do so has cost their population dearly and amounts to a failure of duty. Is this why Westminster talks about “a war” and “our courageous NHS workers fighting on the front line against an invisible enemy”? To obscure their own culpability in a situation in which they were repeatedly warned about the dangers and did too little until it was, arguably, much too late?
It is an argument no-one wants to have; and yet, the fact that the Westminster administration is offering families of health workers who have died a capital sum might suggest that someone somewhere has warned about the possibility of litigation. Let’s face it: in any civil legal action for damages – compensation – which only needs to be proved on the balance of probabilities – not only are the obvious heads of claim actionable, but also any outcome that is reasonably foreseeable as a result of the main failure.
So, if a person loses their job, breaks up with their spouse, loses their home, gets sick or dies, are these actions reasonably foreseeable as a result of the government’s failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the spread of an epidemic that they could see coming? In the UK, we were exceptionally fortunate in having had at least two months’ warning of the coming crisis. That we failed to make the most of that period of grace is, arguably, not only a shame, a pity and an awful waste, but, given the foreseeable fallout, actionable as well.
And I dread to think what the USA, noticeably more litigious in personal injury claims, will make of the hotch-potch of claims, counter-claims, advice and misinformation that is currently circulating there.
Thanks for reading.
Please share: