Cancel everything? That was the title of an article written in March in The Atlantic. We tried that already, and it failed. Now we have calls to lock down the country again.
Why is that the case?
Lockdown enthusiasts haven't missed a paycheck. It's certainly easy to advocate for stricter, more punitive lockdowns when you live a comfortable existence. Usually, the people who have a steady income from a job, a spouse, or other sources aren't stressed out about how they will pay next month's rent or last month's health insurance premium. They're most likely the kinds of people who post on social media about how the entire country needs to shut down for another six to eight weeks to end the pandemic.
Here's the problem with this theory. Shutting down the country neglects the millions who will be directly affected by being forced out of work.
Lockdown fanatics aren't a working parent of a developmentally disabled, autistic, or otherwise special needs child who depended on services offered in the public schools; those services his parents are not able or qualified to provide him.
I'm sure they aren't an hourly worker who has been fired or laid off from a mostly cash job who soon won't be able to pay for their children's education due to a prolonged shutdown.
People have a difficult time empathizing with those who are less fortunate. Online lockdown cheerleaders don't understand what it means to be poor or financially insecure. Perpetual supporters of shutdowns don't have a clue what it's like to live in a small space with too many people, not to have enough money to buy food for a long duration, or anywhere to store it if they did. They have no understanding of what it's like to live in a food desert, where fresh fruit and vegetables are unavailable—places where nutrient-deficient junk food is inexpensive and in abundance.
People quickly criticize the less fortunate for crowding into local fast-food restaurants to grab something to eat. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone can afford to have GrubHub or FreshDirect delivered to their doorstep each night.
When large numbers of people can't support themselves, have trouble providing for their basic needs or the needs of their families, the sooner they're going to fight back. People will ignore the dictates of the likes of Gavin Newsom, Andrew Cuomo, and bizarre governors like Gretchen Whitmer:
Most people have to make choices. Sometimes they're tough calls, even during a pandemic. Should people risk starvation and financial ruin or find ways to work elsewhere so they can feed their families? Those who aren’t blessed with a skill set that allows them to be on zoom meetings all day might need to be in a field that may result in putting themselves at a greater risk of infection from COVID-19.
People who work outside often use crowded mass transportation—because not everyone can afford to own a car or call a cab. The working poor, or those slightly above poverty, may still be struggling. They don’t have the luxury of working from their apartment.
The entire discussion around working from home is stained with economic elitism. Many COVID scolds and social media chastisers do their admonishing online—inside of their comfortable abodes. They have sufficient money and food and need not worry.
People at risk should take the precautions they think necessary, but that most of the present one-size-fits-all strategy deprives extremely low-risk people of the things that make life worth living with no benefits to show for it.
I wholeheartedly encourage everyone who can to stay home. Remain inside until the pandemic is over—whenever that is supposed to be. I'm aware enough to know that not everyone can or will. It's not merely a pathological disregard for the common good when people are out. It's often a matter of survival.
With California and New York shutting down for reasons that have nothing to do with science, we'll see more and more people tuning out and becoming recalcitrant. With no financial support from the government, people resort to survival methods that are in direct opposition to government dictates.
The latest lockdown fiascos taking place are in the U.K. and Italy. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a series of stricter coronavirus restrictions, tightening rules around household mixing that were due to be relaxed over Christmas in England, while leaders in Scotland and Wales also introduced more stringent measures.
So if the first and second lockdowns didn't work, what is the reasoning for a third? It’s sometimes hard to believe the U.K. was an empire not too long ago.
Reuters reported Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte's announcement of Italy’s latest shutdown.
“The situation is difficult across Europe. The virus continues to circulate everywhere,” Conte told reporters. “Our experts were seriously worried that there would be a jump in cases over Christmas. … We, therefore, had to act, but I can assure you it was not an easy decision.”
Under the new rules, non-essential shops will be shuttered Dec. 24-27, Dec. 31- Jan. 3, and Jan. 5 and 6. On those days, Italians will only be allowed to travel for work, health, or emergency reasons. Shops can open Dec. 28-30 and on Jan. 4, and people can leave their houses on those days. All bars and restaurants must remain closed, however.
It’s great to know COVID takes days off.
Conte called on Italians to act responsibly but claimed police wouldn’t be sent into houses to see if residents were following the rules.
It’s interesting to watch countries with wildly dissimilar demographics, varying medical systems, and different infection rates doing the same thing on practically the same dates. It’s bewildering how everyone still thinks it’s all for their health and wellbeing.
Let me let you in on a secret. Virus gonna virus. There is no way around this.
Those in government who adore lockdowns for some strange reason are trying to save face and “do something”—even though they are powerless to stop it. The result is people who cannot provide for themselves having their lives destroyed.
I might understand these lockdowns if everyone were paid to stay home. But they aren’t.
If you are sheltering in place in an ivory tower, or even a comfortable cul-de-sac or a smartly well-appointed apartment, and your most significant concern is boredom and leftover food, please stop scolding those scratching to survive.
If you are fearful and don't want to go outside for anything, no one is compelling you to leave. It would be best if you stayed inside. The rest of us have to be essential workers for our families and earn our own income.
End the lockdowns.
Thought-Provoking Articles:
“A hidden crisis” - As teen suicides rock local sports communities, concerns grow over athletes’ mental health
“The Perpetual Pandemic” – Just because you get vaccinated with that second dose does not mean you should be traveling in the middle of an out-of-control pandemic.
“Last night before lockdown in London” – Some snaps in Reuters of young people still trying to live their lives despite the Government’s best efforts to stop them.
“Cuomo, Whitmer, Newsom Are Worse Than Wrong: Coronavirus Update XLIV” – Latest data-rich update from US statistician William M. Briggs pointing out that deaths always increase in the winter and peak in January.
Something Interesting:
I finally saw this movie. The guy who played Santa was fantastic!
Clayton Craddock is an independent thinker, father of two beautiful children in New York City. He is the drummer of the hit broadway musical Ain't Too Proud. He earned a Bachelor of Business Administration from Howard University's School of Business and is a 28 year veteran of the fast-paced New York City music scene. He has played drums in several hit broadway and off-broadway musicals, including "Tick, tick…BOOM!, Altar Boyz, Memphis The Musical, and Lady Day At Emerson's Bar and Grill. Also, Clayton has worked on: Footloose, Motown, The Color Purple, Rent, Little Shop of Horrors, Spongebob Squarepants, The Musical, Evita, Cats, and Avenue Q.