Skip to main content

Was COVID-19 a conspiracy?

Conspiracy theories tend to go viral on social media.  No surprise, then, that this would be so for COVID-19.  Support for the conspiracy theories comes, not from an evidence base, but mostly from people's instinct to think that the crisis created by the current pandemic is inexplicable. 

From the title, you might expect an exposure of a major conspiracy to either cover-up of manufacture the COVID-19 virus.  There is no need for such theories. 

The only conspiracy is that between our immune systems and the virus, and our trying to find a way to deal with the current crisis.   



A pandemic was expected at some time because it is like such viruses that they will mutate and find ways to bypass our defences.   It is a constant game between viral agents and our immune systems.  Each, as it were, biologically trying to outwit the other.  

So viral mutations are not rare.  A virus might also transfer across species through such variations, giving rise to new strains. 

There is no need for conspiracy theories to explain this.  Nor is it sensible to blame other countries or populations.  They can occur in any country.  It is globalisation that has enhanced the speed of their spread through the world's population.  That is no conspiracy, other than that we conspire to travel and to trade across the globe. 

A new pandemic was expected at some stage and anticipated that such epidemics might become more frequent.  

A pandemic is not unexpected, albeit the timing of one is unpredictable.  

Pandemic influenza had been classified by the Cabinet Office as the number one threat to the UK population, for the past decade or more.  So much so that Health Trusts were encouraged to put in place contingency planning. 

Such contingencies are well worth reading.    An example is the contingency plan for Somerset, which assumes rightly that, 

"Any new pandemic can be expected to have a significant effect on individual members of the population, the NHS and society at large."

Depending on the nature of the virus, the number of deaths could be considerable.   All this was expected from the modelling. 

The best conspiracy now is for us all to pull together and see off this particular attack. 

We need now to learn more lessons from this pandemic.  This is the first of this scale and severity.  We must learn and conspire to do better next time.  There will be a next time. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As