26/03/2020
We observe as many authors try to comprehend the unfolding Covid-19 epidemic. Someone is sincerely trying to understand what is happening, someone is fulfilling the order, and someone is simply retransmitting what they are fed.
Essentially, 2 positions are fighting: alarmists promote a sense of danger in the audience and urge everyone to pupate in hard quarantine, the opposites sedately deny the danger of the virus to humans and urge us to relax and stop the panic.
Moreover, these 2 positions are points on the continuum, where extreme opinions from panic, to total denial, are generally placed at the poles.
Various political systems are experimenting with these positions. Somewhere, in response to anxiety, a total quarantine is introduced in the society with maximum restrictions on physical contacts, and somewhere the emphasis is on preventing a recession in the economy and therefore denial has been chosen, saying “it’s just the flu”.
What position to choose? This task, as it seems so far, does not have an objective solution. It requires an ethical position. If we allow a statistical approach, then we talk about the permissible percentage of the dead, compare it with other diseases, and care about the economy.
But if we take a humanistic approach, then we are thinking about our parents and grandparents, the people we love. In this case, we demand quarantine and masks. Nowadays for the minds of an ordinary person, the statistical approach is simply not ethical and, therefore, is not acceptable.