Critical Thinking and SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. Covid-19)

Critical Thinking and SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. Covid-19) - Was it Worth it?

JMJ

After my discussion with Smith I have been pondering a question:

Were all the measures taken to contain the pandemic worth it?

Key factors that come to mind are economic, geopolitical and moral. This will not be an in depth study, just the documenting a 'stream of consciousness' exercise.

Economics

This factor seems to divide into two questions:What was the economic cost of the response to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and what would it have been if the civil leaders had taken the "do nothing" option?

The COVID-19 recession is an economic recession happening across the world economy in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Global stock markets experienced their worst crash since 1987, and in the first three months of 2020 the G20 economies fell 3.4% year-on-year. Between April and June 2020, the International Labour Organization estimated that an equivalent of 400 million full-time jobs were lost across the world, and income earned by workers globally fell 10 percent in the first nine months of 2020, equivalent to a loss of over US$3.5 trillion. (Source: Wikipedia)

So, as it was there was a recession linked with the Pandemic. Would it have been worse or better?

So if you did nothing and 20% of the population was off sick over 2 years and given the limited number of general and ICU hospital beds, the healthcare system would collapse and there would be a significant impact economically. I would guess the pandemic would last about the same time as the 1918 pandemic (2y) and the recovery would take probably 2 years - so 4 years of impact.

Canada's economy dipped ... but I'm not certain how much.

I'm not an economist, but took a course at University - so take my estimates for what they are ...

But, here's some quick references that I scanned (read quickly):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0863-y

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-we-overreacting-to-the-coronavirus-lets-do-the-math-2020-04-19

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/economic-cost-coronavirus-recession-covid-deaths

So economically, it appears that the 'do nothing' option would cause more short and medium term pain that the restrictions and investment in vaccines etc.

I'm not devoted to this conclusion ... I'd be happy to have reputable counter arguments.

Geopolitical

This is one that I think bears mentioning. The primary geo-political competition is between the USA, China and Russia.

China and Russia moved quickly on restrictions and / or vaccinations.

The Chinese experience shows the advantage of their system. No worrying about the next election, just make decisions and give orders.

If the US took a 'do nothing' approach, they would be at an economic disadvantage for (I believe) at least 5 years compared with China and to a lesser extent Russia. The timeframe is based on how long it took the 1918 Pandemic to proceed through its lifecycle (2 years), the advances that the other economies would make while the US was 'paused' and the time it would take to catch-up to the front-runners.

That would not be a desirable state of affairs.

Moral

This one gives me trouble as I have difficulty believing that just because a disease impacts the elderly and infirm, that someone can whisper the words 'common-good' and their survival is counted as naught. I think that leaders have a duty towards all the people under their leadership.

Does the damage done to the un-infected and young balance out the efforts to protect the old.

That is a fallacy because it ignores that fact that the disease affects all segments of the population without discrimination. Pathogens are typically equal opportunity employers of human bodies to reproduce.

The side effect is that they kill some of their hosts.

Looking at the stats in Canada - we see the impacts a broader spectrum of people.

Cases in Canada

Hospitalizations

ICU Admissions

Deaths

The key element here is that we don't know who is going to go to the hospital, ICU and die. If you could determine that - maybe you could make a case for sheltering those individuals. But that is impossible. There are too many factors that determine who lives and who dies etc. In other words, only God knows.

So, if a pathogen is allowed to run free, it overwhelms the healthcare systems - as started to happen in Manitoba when they had to transport covid patients out of the province. Some of whom died ...

This really comes down to what is common-good and what is the obligations of the civil leaders in this situation?

Taking the common-good (which it turns out is a hard to define term) - if you allow COVID-19 to run amok without intervention through the population, is it more or less damaging than the case with interventions?

Basically, if the healthcare system is overwhelmed, people die. Society as a whole is likewise impacted. Society is a network not an island and if the pathogen were allowed to move unfettered through society it will cause a damage to the common-good as well.

The civil leaders have an obligation to create the circumstances in which people can live out their lives to attain their final end. This include the protection of those lives.

If they did nothing, then they would commit a sin of omission and dereliction of duty since they are not just in a position of authority to help the young and strong, but also the old and weak.

Conclusion

At a tactical moral level, I think it was justified. Also, looking strategically, I think that the Geo-political and Economic factors are also in favour of the interventions.

The exact methods used is a detail that needs to be examined. For example - closing churches but leaving bars open is obviously not licit.

But that is a topic for later ... if I have time or inclination.

P^3

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

+ JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

+ JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas. After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP. Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

+ JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'. This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium. If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

+ JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre. He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building. Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work. I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin. From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

+ JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc. So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post. Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God. So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries. As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...

Tradicat

Search This Blog