On Covid, and Ukraine: Cowering Doesn't Save Lives
My response to the world's reaction to Covid was the first time in my thirty-something years of life that I found myself truly and strongly at odds with the progressive majority. It was clear to me from the start that what we were doing was not the right thing to do. I don’t really know how to explain why I felt that way, right away - it’s not like I had ever experienced anything even remotely like this before. Yet I was immediately, viscerally certain lockdowns were morally wrong.
I almost couldn't believe that what was happening was real, that there was such a thing as an illegal gathering in the supposedly free world I had lived in all my life. That we were actually going to force many businesses to shut down, force schools to close, cancel vital healthcare, and essentially ruin quality of life - and, probably, reduce life expectancy - for so many people, all to prevent a handful of deaths (on a global scale) of mainly very, very old people. I just felt that there was no sense of proportionality in the response. Nothing in the last two years has changed my opinion in that regard.
At first, I thought there must be something we weren’t being told - that the threat must be worse than it actually looked, to me - or none of what was happening made any sense. I realized there probably wasn't any secret reason I should be panicking (like everyone else) when our initial two weeks to flatten the curve passed and our great Canadian bureaucracy seemed to still be dragging its heels. It was clear that those in charge didn't actually see this as an emergency - they hadn't taken any real action (besides lockdowns). I started to feel like the real reason for their response to Covid was simply to save face.
They reacted too slowly to effectively contain the virus. Once the virus was already everywhere, they overreacted to inaccurate projections of fatality rates. At that point, damage had already been done, and they didn’t want to just admit they made a mistake, as they should have. Instead, they decided to continue with their overblown response, in the most epic example of the sunk cost fallacy I could ever imagine. Having committed to the idea that the measures they had taken were needed, they had to keep acting as though this was the case, lest anyone hold them accountable for the consequences of the measures. They had to be necessary - otherwise they would have caused needless suffering to people for no good reason.
It was clearly much more important that the measures taken demonstrated that our governing bodies were taking the threat seriously, than if they had a real impact on the threat itself.
As for our more current crisis, I am back to (mostly) agreeing with the general norm, in that we need a strong response to Putin against the war in Ukraine. And yet, I do find myself at odds with one consensus that has developed. That everything is on the table - except any direct military response. I believe that the one thing no one seems to be willing to do is exactly what we need to do.
Our bureaucratic class in the West seems irresistibly drawn to ineffective measures. Masks remind us we are in a pandemic - who cares if they work. Lockdowns feel like they should prevent deaths (even if they don’t) - who cares if they destroy people’s lives. Getting vaccinated is the right thing to do - who cares if it doesn’t actually reduce spread of Covid. We will take away people's livelihoods and burn personal bridges anyway.
On Russia - sanctions will absolutely have an impact on their economy. Is there really any hope that they will stop the war in Ukraine? Once again, it seems, who cares.
We do not seem concerned with the long term effects of interventions, as evidenced both by our response to Covid and the war in Ukraine. Today, we tend to avoid risk, even if it could lead to greater risks tomorrow. What will happen to people who lost their jobs due to vaccine mandates? Even after these mandates are lifted, they aren't just going to forget how they were treated; they aren't just going to forget how they were coerced. What will happen to our now more strained than ever healthcare systems, that were already regularly overwhelmed long before Covid? Is it looking like we did a good job in preventing them from being overwhelmed, in perpetuity? What would have happened if we had focused more on protecting those most at risk, while minimizing or avoiding the harm to society? These are still questions that few are willing to even consider after two years of restrictive measures.
There are similarly uncomfortable questions about Putin that few seem willing to consider right now. We seem to have decided that as long as we don’t directly fight in the conflict itself, the West will remain safe. Most everyone will ask you whether you want to start a third world war if you mention the possibility of a no-fly zone or sending troops to stop Putin in Ukraine - much like questioning any Covid measure, especially in 2020, led to the question if you wanted to kill grandma. I never wanted to kill grandma (I loved my own grandmother more than anyone in the world). I absolutely don’t want to see World War Three. But just as I was never convinced the measures taken to protect grandma from Covid were the best way to do so - I am not convinced our response to Putin will prevent him from increasing his aggression.
Putin may escalate because he considers harsh sanctions to be an act of war. Putin may escalate because he considers sending weapons to Ukraine to be an act of war. Putin may escalate because someone called him short that day and he wants to remind the world that he is a big strong man. The only way to stop him, is to actually stop him.
As much as I understand the reluctance to send our citizens into war, the ones we would be sending now would be soldiers. The failure to send soldiers now may lead to a greater number of citizens, including civilians, dying in the future.
If Putin thinks he can get away with invading a sovereign nation - are we really sure he won’t try to see if he can get away with invading a sovereign nation that is a member of NATO? Maybe just one of the small ones - will we really “start a third world war” over one of the small ones? If he gets away with one of the small ones - might our Arctic be an eventual target, here in Canada? Would we start World War Three over our Arctic, or would we let him have it, as long as he stops there? If we let that happen - would he stop there? I think it is foolish to think that not provoking Putin will keep us safe.
Maybe instead of escalating the war in scope, he will escalate it in scale. If he can get away with invading Ukraine, he may want to see what weapons he can get away with deploying without any direct Western intervention. Would we go in if he launches chemical weapons in Ukraine? What if he uses tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield? Would we go in, would we respond in kind - or would we be reluctant to respond at all, if it were “only” a limited strike?
I believe Putin is asking these questions, whether we want to or not. If we continue to let him get away with more, he will keep trying more - and the response we will eventually be required to make will be far greater than if we stop him now.
I am talking a lot about what I feel, and what I think. That is because we seem to have subordinated feelings, empathy, and even humanity to rules and perceived truths (even when they are disproved). But sometimes things just feel wrong - because they are. The decision to lockdown society over an illness whose risk is disproportionately skewed towards the elderly felt wrong. To not stop the war in Ukraine now, even though we easily could, feels wrong. Not only because I care about saving Ukrainian lives - but because I care about saving our own. Being fearful now may lead to even scarier consequences in the future.