Meet Oregon. Oregon is the 9th largest state in terms of land area, but is sparsely populated due largely to the geography, averaging around 40 people per square mile. They have a total population in that state of around 4.3 million. In terms of COVID-19, they currently rank 40th out of the 50 states. With less than 4,000 cases they've had 140 deaths. (Seems like a lot of 4's in there.) In terms of COVID-19 spread, Oregon is the fourth lowest behind Montana, Alaska, and West Virginia. To put that in perspective, Wyoming has approximately 6 people per square mile to Oregon's 40 people per square mile, but Oregon has a lower infection rate than Wyoming.
So it might appear odd that a federal judge overruled a lower court ruling that prevented Oregon Governor Brown from extending the lockdown in that state. The state with the third lowest infection rate and the 10th lowest number of infections is extending these requirements when other states are not. The governor explains why. "The science behind these executive orders hasn't changed one bit. Ongoing physical distancing, staying home as much as possible, and wearing face coverings will save lives across Oregon."
Ah! Science. Good call. Let's see how that holds up. Oregon is one of 17 states that provides their own funds to cover all or most abortions sought by low-income women ... despite the science that says these are human beings. Oregon is one of only 8 states in the Union that has laws protecting people on the basis of "gender identity/expression" ... despite the science that says there are only two genders, and gender is established biologically by birth. So we might have to question the sincerity of her call to science here.
But there is another issue, and this isn't about Oregon or abortion or the like. I think it is unavoidably true scientifically that preventing contact between people will absolutely decrease or even eliminate the spread of COVID-19. We, of course, aren't actually doing that. We're only approaching it. But there can be no doubt that isolation will stop the spread of this virus. The logic, then, is "To save lives, let's do what is necessary to stop the spread of this virus." All well and good. No dispute. Well, no dispute except that we're NOT. But, moving on. My question is why does this logic stop at COVID-19? How many people die from smoking? Why haven't we banned it? How many die alcohol-related deaths? Why haven't we banned it? How many people die from heart disease due to under-exercise and over-eating? Why aren't we regulating that? In the current larger picture with the looming devastation of global climate change, the only actual fix is to drastically curtail human activity. We need to step back to lower numbers of humans and much more primitive technology. If saving lives is our highest concern and we know what we can do to do it, why aren't we doing it?
These measures that we've thrown into place certainly change the course and spread of COVID-19. Let no one convince you otherwise. Do they do it more effectively than other methods? No, absolutely not. A total quarantine would have certainly affected it greater. Of course, we would have all died from that level of quarantine with no supplies, no support, no help at all. But COVID-19 would have been stopped in its tracks ... right along with the rest of us. Are there other more effective possibilities? I think so, but we won't even consider them (like protecting the most at-risk rather than locking down those who aren't). Was this course necessary? Given the current data that says that this virus wasn't nearly as virulent for the largest part of the population as they thought it would be, it doesn't seem so. But these are not my point. My point is that people need to apply their standards evenly. More people die from more common reasons than COVID. When they call on Science to say we need to take these measures to save lives but they deny Science when saving lives is less convenient or desired, it puts the god of Science to shame and invalidates the whole "Science" argument. Science is a puny god when it can be overruled by the true god of most people -- "me."
4 comments:
I listened to a portion of Governor Brown's press conference last week and she and others kept referring to Covid-19 as a disease. Have you heard that before? I'm not a huge follower of the news so maybe calling it a disease is old news. But it sure sounds like there is a (political?) reason for doing so.
There may be nuances or definitions of which I'm not aware but everyone is referring to it as a "disease." See the Mayo Clinic, for instance. According to a medical dictionary, "disease" is defined as "a definite pathological process having a characteristic set of signs and symptoms." Seems like "disease" is accurate. I'm not sure what difference that terminology would make, what other term should be preferred, or what difference another term would make.
I'd think this is a virus and not a disease because in that definition is a "characteristic set of signs and symptoms", and this illness certainly doesn't meet that standard when its symptoms range from nothing at all to death. What difference it makes is hardly relevant, though.
I'm not sure of the point, David. I mean, there is a characteristic set of signs and symptoms even if we don't yet have it nailed down. We know, for instance, that a limp is not a symptom of COVID and that breathing issues might be. But, more to the point, "virus" is not an alternative for "disease" any more than "water" is an alternative for "drowning." "Disease" refers to what the virus causes. But I agree that the terminology doesn't make much of a difference here.
Post a Comment