Pandexit, please: The need for a Covid end date – Issue XXIII
The rolling Covid mandates and restrictions sidestep the most important question: what is the end-game?
Cartoon by Crid.
This is an excerpt of an article that features in our 23rd print issue.
When “three weeks to flatten the curve" sent us scurrying indoors, many of us took heart in having an end date. We would watch Netflix or read for three weeks, after which time the policymakers would take a step back, regroup, and shift to more sustainable mitigation strategies. Which is exactly what didn't happen.
As the weeks rolled into months, the doors kept opening, shutting, opening, and shutting again. 'Cases' down? Ease up on restrictions. 'Cases' up again? Slam the door, fast.
We somehow got used to this curious facsimile of living, this hallway of swinging doors stretching out to a vanishing point. We stopped questioning the hallway's existence. We trudged along, giving up on finding the door that would lead us out.
A year and a half into it, with shots in billions of arms, we're still uncertain about what we will be permitted to do tomorrow, next month, and next year.
Until when?
Timelines give a shape and order to things. They help people cope. It's why children in the back seat of a car want to know "how many more miles". And as any parent knows, "eat three more broccoli spears" gets better results than "eat as much as you can".
It's no different with Covid. Had the policymakers given us clear endpoints, we could have powered through their demands with less confusion and frustration. We would have fewer people resisting what they perceive, not without reason, to be government overreach.
…
