Your antennae are up months before it comes. You’ve gotten to the point where, if Leo Varadkarsays something won’t happen, you brace yourself for its certain announcement, in good time.
When the axe finally falls, you’re on holidays in Donegal in July, and the uncomfortable reality sinks in that the house and the rain-sodden outdoors will have to do you, pubs and restaurants will have to wait. Because you’ve long known that the game that’s made its way onto your table – one of freedom by way of the barcode – is one you won’t play.
There are many quiet tears across the country, many tummies in a familiar pattern of churning, as a new breed faces an uncertain dawn. They’re greeted, at best, with a wall of silence, at worst with opprobrium and unflinchingly entitled judgement.
The air of suspicion they have increasingly felt around them, in a quietly charged atmosphere that has made it harder to be in the thick of things, even among some cherished family and friends, has become solid and tangible.
And yet the day is like any other, the view from the window just the same. Nothing but a simple QR code and a biddable hospitality sector, understandably desperate to re-open its doors, signals the birth of a new Irish underclass.
Research shows that people have many reasons for declining a medical intervention. These are mainly born out of considered thinking: medical history and experience, including vaccine-injury; research and knowledge of what is right for their own body; the practice of natural healing modalities as a first recourse to health.
Gym membership cancellation rates at the recent extension of medical segregation to that sector suggest that those who have a strong investment in their wellbeing through exercise may assess the risk/benefit of Covid-19 vaccination in a different way to those who may be more vulnerable to Covid’s worst effects.
There is no one-size-fits-all. Such is life. If we believe that this turns a vaccine-free person into a walking biohazard, perhaps we have bought into fear over an inspected view.
We are now some twenty-two months into a pandemic that has fundamentally shifted the course of our existence. It is fitting to ask whether, along with a potentially very serious virus, we have also been visited by a kind of collective trauma, stemming from news streams delivering non-stop daily scrutiny of Covid-19, along with rolling curtailments of our lives and those of our children. Never before has an idea of safety been so rigidly attached to a single concept: being Covid-19-free.
I don’t make light of Covid-19. I know what a serious illness it can be, particularly for those who are older or have underlying vulnerabilities. However, in a new world characterized by fear and caution – surrounded by visual reminders that something frightening is in our midst – I believe that something vital to a healthy society is being dangerously side-lined: the checks and balances necessary to healthy democratic governance.
We are in the process of enshrining into law a piece of primary legislation, the Health and Criminal Justice (Covid-19) (Amendment) (No.2), granting the extension of extraordinary emergency powers to Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly, powers that prior to Covid-19 we never could have countenanced handing over to the State.
These extend the medical segregation that has become normalised in society, where the paradoxically named “immunity certs” – granted after double vaccination to access supposedly inviolable freedoms – are widely seen as a reasonable and proportionate response to pandemic times, rather than a human rights’ issue in urgent need of inspection.
Do we wish to live in a world where a person can be stripped of their basic freedoms because of their private medical status? A world where the unproven threat of asymptomatic transmission is greater than the threat of authoritarian, technocratic rule?
(One where, in perhaps the greatest twist of all, those who have retained their “privileges” are of course no less immune from the Covid transmission chain.)
Do we wish to be part of a society where, for instance, a medically vulnerable person who is not suitable for vaccination is left out in the cold – because GPs currently have no authority to grant meaningful medical exemptions?
Do we want to raise our children in a world where a person who exercises their right to informed consent, as enshrined in every human rights in healthcare covenant since Nuremberg, can be readily pegged as plainly reprehensible?
In Ireland, we are thankfully now alert to the impacts of the sins of the past – where the “othering”, for instance of women and children in mother and baby homes, was an accepted thing – yet are we willing to face uncomfortable truths about our present?
At this moment, we have effectively “othered” a cohort who are subject to a particular kind of derision. Ireland’s vaccine rollout, which sees the highest level of coverage in the EU, has not transpired into the panacea promised. Despite this, we see blame at times verging on incitement to hatred publicly levelled at those who choose not to or cannot, due to medical reasons, avail of this medical intervention. The failure of the medicine is somehow the fault of those who didn’t take it.
Even as reputable medical journals cautionagainst stigmatising the unvaccinated, the vaccine-free are relentlessly pegged as the scapegoat of this difficult episode, where goalposts keep shifting and promised remedies fail to deliver. Those in power conveniently use this to deflect from their own failures.
“Anti-vax”, a dehumanizing, broad brushstroke term, has become common parlance. Nothing short of a creeping obsession has developed towards a group stigmatised with this label, among some of Ireland’s most trusted, supposedly liberal media commentators, and among some of our most powerful political voices.
Terminology that casually stigmatizes people has the twin impacts of eroding human dignity while effectively silencing dissent and debate – two essential tools of a functioning democracy. And if the ensuing social media outcry was anything to go by, many found it chilling to witness Minister Donnelly level this term at a fellow deputy in the Dáil chambers, for presenting peer-reviewed scientific information.
There's strong support among public for mandatory vaccinations, survey finds. For all this and lots more, pick up a copy of Monday's Irish Daily Mail or click on https://t.co/7yQSg4dmA7pic.twitter.com/bILyyJO8mg
While we can casually cast blame, without evidence, upon the cohort who didn’t “take one for the team”, those who should actually be answerable almost two years in operate without meaningful scrutiny from either a critical media or political opposition. And here, I believe, is where we should all be looking to.
We have empowered Minister Donnelly to strip some seven per cent of the Irish population of their basic social and civil rights. If this legislation extends until its “sunset” of June 2022, we will have placed a minority of Irish society at the back of the bus for almost one year. And who knows how much longer they’ll even be allowed to travel on the bus? If past form is anything to go by, we might then expect another piece of similar legislation to follow it.
I struggle to understand how all this is compatible with a liberal democracy. As medical segregation and the removal of human rights flourishes across Europe, and our social credit becomes increasingly tied to barcode-accessed living, at what point do we begin to seriously look at the potential harms of this brave new world, for which we are hard at work laying down the building blocks?
A medical officer having the power of detention over you, in an undefined “designated place”, if you are merely suspected of having Covid-19, is not democracy. Coerced medication is not democracy, and the championing of Covid Certs by Leo Varadkar, on the basis that it drove up vaccination rates, only celebrates this lapse.
Decision-making that impacts everyone in Ireland, taken by a group of eight middle-class, middle-aged white men, who fail to represent the cross-section of Irish society, including those most vulnerable to the effects of lockdown – working-class people, women, and other minority groups – is not democracy.
Almost two years in, it no longer holds for our government to act as if we are in the emergency phase of the pandemic. This ongoing abuse of emergency legislation and power is causing untold damage to the communities trying to stay afloat around it.
There is evidence aplenty now to begin an assessment of the broad impacts of pandemic measures, and this must be done with independent expertise provided by those who have not been at the helm. The bigger picture must now come into view. We need to properly consider the economic, social/cultural and in the context of overall healthcare.
I believe, special attention must be paid to Covid-19 policy impacts on our young people. Strategies need to be rebalanced towards carving out a future that allows us to respond proportionately to the threat of Covid-19, while maintaining people’s human and civil rights, their entitlement to dignity and privacy, and ending a nasty division that has crept in with terrifying stealth, in a time of crisis.
We need solidarity regardless of medical status. Please stand with me to reach out to your political representatives to insist they convey our call to reject segregation and division, and to demand checks and balances from a government that many increasingly see as being power-drunk at Ireland’s wheel.
Ciara Considine is a book publisher, singer-songwriter (Ciara Sidine), civil rights activist and mother of two, living in Dublin.
This article was first published in A Mandate Free Ireland, a weekly campaign newsletter, on 13 December 2021 (Click here to subscribe: https://tinyurl.com/2p8kvmw7).
In the controversy surrounding the leaking of a confidential document by then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar last year, a key point has been missed regarding whistleblower Chay Bowes’s motivations. As an insider and former head of the VHI Homecare division Bowes gained significant insights into the operation of the Irish health system, especially the HSE. This interview probes into the obstacles he faced in attempting to deliver an effective model of community care away from overcrowded hospitals. He argues the HSE perpetuates dysfunction to the benefit of the private system.
Chay Bowes first interfaced with medicine through the Irish Army Medical Corps in 1988. This stoked a passion for healthcare which led him to take up a job as a phlebotomist, where he encountered an older generation of hospitals, such as St James’s, where he worked with elderly patients in the country’s public health system.
This experience coloured his view of the health system as it evolved to become, as he puts it, ‘more focused on financial outcome rather than patient outcome,’ and led him to set up his own company, focused on clinical work in people’s homes.
He had found that general hospitals tended to be ‘Victorian constructs, where we put all the sick people who are susceptible to infections, so that they can mix with other sick people.’ He concluded ‘that much of what happens in the hospitals doesn’t really need to happen there, and a huge volume of those patients could be treated at home in a cheaper and safer holistic fashion.’
After the dismantling of small, community hospitals Bowes observed ‘pressure building on the larger general hospitals to become the catchall for all kinds of diseases and complexities,’ and that this ‘contributed to the ongoing perpetual dysfunction which is today what we call the HSE.’
Taking out a bank loan, he purchased a van to move around the nursing homes, taking blood samples. By that stage he had observed thousands of elderly arriving into hospital in taxis and ambulances for routine blood samples. There they were catching flus and colds, so he said to himself: “why don’t I develop a system to treat those people out in the community?” This was back in 2004-2005, but he was told that’s not how things are done.
Undeterred, he decided to take an extended leave of absence from the hospital to set up a service doing these blood tests in the community, which proved very successful. The only limitation was that he was working alone.
At that point, he expanded his service to give vaccinations in the community too and took on a few employees. The first company evolved into another, leading to a contract with the HSE in 2007 worth €14 million. That business was focused on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chest diseases. Its rationale was to keep various types of patients in the community, who were repeatedly being admitted to hospital with lung diseases.
‘So, they didn’t go into a hospital, where people tend to get sicker, particularly those with lung diseases. It also helped these patients,’ he says, ‘that their social networks were intact.’ Soon there were two hundred working for the company.
Resuscitation room bed after a trauma intervention.
Tara Healthcare
At that point he brought Dr. Gerry McElvaney on board, ‘a really patient focused guy,’ he says, ‘who was highly intelligent and super-committed to doing things differently.’
Together, they pushed forward with what became Tara Healthcare. When patients were surveyed, he says, ‘ninety-eight percent preferred to remain in the community under our scheme rather than go into hospital: all the data was saying that this was a much safer.’ It was also cheaper to deliver, and the patients’ families were delighted to remain with their loved ones.’
He argues that they had created a perfect example of how a community-based scheme could be delivered cheaper with better patient outcomes, and where staff were really happy too, as they could get out of the acute hospitals.
However, he encountered, ‘an incredible level of scepticism around innovation in Irish healthcare.’ In one case, he says, there was a hospital in Dublin, which ‘wouldn’t send patients to this new service, because they didn’t like our medical director because he came from another hospital group. Professional rivalry is rife in Irish Medicine, sometimes to the detriment of patients.’
HSE Logic
Time and again he was met with the perverse HSE logic of ‘it’s doing really well, so let’s shut it down and send all these patients back into the hospital.’
The HSE’s reaction to the Financial Crisis of 2008 was just like its dysfunctional approach to COVID-19 he argues. They closed his operation down because hospitals ‘which were in perpetual crisis wanted us to move this service into their area.’ A senior HSE figure told him directly that ‘“what you’ve done in Dublin is almost too good. Everyone’s going to want it. They’re going to want it in Galway. They’re going to want it in Limerick” So, they wouldn’t fund it because they were already funding the dysfunction.’
The agency funds the dysfunction to a certain level of service with tens of billions of euros. And when something outside of the system comes along and demonstrates efficacy, financial viability, and good patient outcomes, that’s irrelevant because they still have to fund the dysfunction. It’s like trying to repair an airliner in mid-air – you don’t want to land because it could expose the rottenness of the system.
So, we sent the patients back to hospital, further highlighting the dysfunction of the HSE at the time. They had to pay us a penalty for terminating the contract prematurely, which cost them more than running it for the subsequent two years.
Working for the HSE he found innovation was met with suspicion: ‘the hospitals want to hold onto patients because without patients occupying beds, they can’t justify their budgets.’
And because budgets are pinned to occupancy and the size of the facility, hospitals seemed slow to manage overcrowding at the cost of lesser funding.
Fair Deal?
He argues that we should ‘evolve to a place where we simply don’t treat people with certain uncomplicated infections in hospitals, like in Canada and Australia.’
Now, he says, the only fast track for vulnerable patients is into a state or private nursing home, which is excessively expensive, ‘or their home is taken from them in what the government very cynically calls a Fair Deal:
someone works all their life, pays taxes, builds a home for their family, and contributes to the state and to society. But when they get ill, go into a nursing home or require dignified care the state wants to take their home from them to pay for that care.
Moreover, despite earning huge praise from patients, peers and when he presented the scheme to the NHS in the UK, he found the HSE ‘were always finding fault with what we were doing.’
‘I became used to that,’ he says ‘and very quickly realized the only thing the Irish public system does very well is perpetual dysfunction. It manages to procure massive budgets from the State, and despite this consistently overspends,’ despite ‘terrible outcomes for patients.’
He suggests that it takes ‘a concerted effort to continually do health as badly as we do in Ireland’, a system of public health, ‘with such huge budgets for such a small population.’
He says it is important to question why, given a very small and young population, ‘half of that population pays out of pocket expenses, approaching €2 billion, for private health insurance.’ He reckons this is ‘to protect ourselves from the dysfunction of the public system.’
🚨A record 908,519 people in Ireland are now on some form of a public hospital waiting list to be treated or assessed by a consultant. Meanwhile Gov lacks meaningful action on addressing capacity deficits #CareCantWait @DonnellyStephen @mmcgrathtdhttps://t.co/8ye5e4DoWw
‘It’s a very simple problem,’ he says, ‘too many of the same actors are involved in the public and private systems.’ The analogy he uses is of two separate doorways in a clinic: the public and the private:
You knock on the public door, and say, “Look, doc, I’ve got a terrible hip. It’s really hurting me. And he goes: “Yeah, you need a relatively simple, hip replacement, but it’s going to be probably three, three and-a-half years, because the system is overloaded.”
But the doctor adds unless of course you’ve got health insurance. So you say, “OK, I’ll go and get health insurance.” But by this stage you are too old to avail of this. But what are you going to do now, as your hip is only going to get worse?
You’ve been to the first door, where you met the doctor in the public system about the hip, who we’ll refer to as Dr Jim. Then you go ten feet down the corridor and knock on the door. “Who’s there? Why it’s Dr Jim again!’” And you say “Hey, Dr Jim, you just told me that you couldn’t fix my hip for three years.” and he responds: “not exactly. I can fix it if you pay me via your insurer.”
In a country of five million people, we have almost one million people waiting for care of one sort or another in a public system, which is one of the best funded systems in the developed world.
And, Bowes says, ‘it just so happens that the man running the show, Paul Reid, has no specific health care experience, for example. The UK’s NHS employs around 1.4 million people to serve a population of nearly 67 million. Its CEO Simon Stevens is paid €210,000 a year, while Ireland’s HSE employs around 102,000 people with a population of only 4.9 million, Reid is astoundingly paid over €426,000 a year.’
We have hundreds of people who work for the agency on long term sick leave. The dysfunction runs into every fractional part, IT, training, resourcing, recruitment, and services. The dysfunction is almost at a cellular level. But again, we are consistently told that we can’t land the jumbo jet to fix it, because if we do that, what will happen?
COVID-19
When COVID-19 landed, Bowes says, ‘with the stroke of a pen, we bought up every single private bed in the State. This occurred despite people saying since the foundation of the State, “Oh, you know, you can’t publicize the private, it would never work, but it was done overnight because the will existed.’
Health policy in Ireland, he says, reflects:
the laissez faire attitude of a class of people who are running the medical system, advising the agency and the legal system. They of course all have health insurance. I don’t know anybody who served on the board of the VHI or any doctor working in the system who doesn’t have private healthcare. I myself have to admit that I took out private health insurance purely because I know how difficult it is to access care via the public system. It’s sad but true and I am lucky enough to be able to pay, unlike more than 50% of the most needy In our society who cannot.
‘Irish People’ he says are dying ‘for the lack of basic diagnostic care.
Bowes muses on how: ‘The further up the pyramid you go around a health product in Ireland, the less you hear about the patients. And when you get to the board level, patient outcomes are in some way superfluous to the real issues, which are profit and the market.’ He argues that there ‘isn’t a single private provider in the country here’ which ‘isn’t preoccupied with profit.’
He says:
We’re happy to ostensibly starve a public system and propagate a private system which is absolutely predatory on the dysfunction in the public system. And in many, many cases, the people providing the care in the public system also have been or currently are providing care in the private system.
That’s our medieval, dysfunction and immoral system. It’s actually, and I don’t use this term lightly, an apartheid system. We have a segregated, apartheid system in health care. It simply isn’t based on needs of the patients. Ok, obviously, if someone’s at death’s door, they’re going to get seen, but I’m talking about this grinding dysfunction, where both sides are nodding to each other as they pass each other in the night, knowing that it’s so wrong. It’s so wrong. There are super doctors out there, super surgeons, super nurses and staff operating in the health system. It’s definitely a case of lions being led by donkeys.
Really encouraged by response of a leading figure in Irish culture over the past 50 years. "Daniele's interview with Fr.McVerry is classic. Cassandra is rapidly becoming the most important vehicle for ideas in the land." ***@danieleidiniph1@BowesChayhttps://t.co/7N1bz38X77
Bowes muses ‘I have no problem with doctors wanting to make a decent living. You’ve got to pay people appropriately. But now we’re flooding the system with locums from overseas who are often poorly trained and have poor English and patient interaction skills .’
And points to another ‘incredible dysfunction, which is again, state sponsored.’
We train more doctors than any other country of our size in the world, but we export them to Australia, New Zealand and the UK. It costs the state a significant amount to train these guys, and then they can just catch a plane to Bondi Beach. Of course, we can’t force people to work here – no more that we can force a health care worker to take a vaccine – but there are ways to incentivize the system, and develop better methods of training doctors, because we still use the archaic Leaving Cert as the basis for deciding who we train as doctors.
He also wonders:
How is it that while we train more doctors than anyone else that we are importing more doctors and nurses than anyone else? Countries like the Philippines, India and others are being bled of their precious nursing and medical staff to come to Ireland to look after our sick. There’s something wrong, right? But in the Irish system nothing changes. No wants to take on the vested interests. No one wants to take on the big personalities in health care and medicine. The political nexus between medicine, law and politics in Ireland is so tight because of insular practices and local allegiances trumping national welfare with some of the biggest political donors and influencers being waist deep in the sector.
He wonders ‘Who’s going to challenge the vested interests and speak out for vulnerable patients? The CEO of the HSE? Absolutely not. The past CEOs of the HSE seem to be only good at one thing, which is saying, “We’re trying…” But they walk out at the end of the end of their contracts with a big pension and usually into guess where? Yes, you guessed it, the private sector.’
He reveals how ‘a former CEO of the agency said to my face that he was the most powerless man in the health system.’
Image (c) Daniele Idini
Dysfunction Funds Profit
Bowes wonders:
How can you operate a business with a hundred and twenty thousand employees and seem to be powerless to sack people for not delivering, or in many cases simply doing their job wrong? Where’s the accountability in that system?
How can you amalgamate numerous health boards which are operating as satellites into a single “dynamic entity” and nobody loses their job? Not one manager is made redundant. Not one of them is even sanctioned.
How can a health system pay out tens and tens of millions in malpractice claims for egregious malpractice and incompetence in both governance and clinical care? For essentially killing women who are pregnant by denying them an abortion? By condemning young women to terrible life ending illness by failing to diagnose their cancers? How can you pay out these tens and tens of millions again and again, year after year, and nobody is sanctioned for it? How does that work?
It works because the dysfunction funds profit, and that profit is harvested by vulture funds, by private hospitals and private investors, by their legal advisors, some of whom don’t even pay taxes in this country, and who pays the price? The citizens that languish on public waiting lists accruing ill-health because they can’t pay for treatment. The man with the simple requirement for treatment, he’s invisible to the system, he is superfluous to the profit motive.
The poor he says have no bargaining power because:
the bargaining power is money and influence, and the people who have the influence to change the system are receiving huge salaries to manage and essentially perpetuate dysfunction. Again, the private system predates on the mismanagement of the public system. If it functioned there would be no need for a private system, right? Therefore, you have to wonder, who does the current dysfunction benefit? It’s an easy one: the private providers. But nobody who is of the machine is working against it. No one in Leinster House is saying to the CEO of the HSE: “What are you doing for your four hundred grand? We’ve got less intensive care beds per capita than Lithuania or Latvia. Two years into a pandemic, we still don’t have a dedicated COVID hospital which is just insane.
Apparatchiks of a state system who’ve worked, like Paul Reid in state jobs are seen as a safe bet. They’re nominated in as managers, managers of dysfunction, gatekeepers for their political sponsors and marked for future cushy roles on the private side of the wall.
Image (c) Daniele Idini.
Perpetual Crisis
He adds that ‘things like this mysterious and much vaunted “Cyber Attack”, which apparently “destroyed the abilities of the system” seem to be a perfect excuse to deflect from the internal failures of HSE management and external incompetence of its political masters.’
Bowes says: ’what I know, and anyone that has worked in the system knows, is that there was and is no viable system to attack.’ The HSE have ruminated for decades on the implantation of an electronic patient record: they have spent millions evaluating, re-evaluating, procrastinating, and failing to implement a viable solution.
Months after this “Attack”, you’re still running Windows 1998. Somebody needs to be held accountable.
But, he says: ‘the Minister doesn’t talk to the to the HSE, the relationships between the “Three Masters” of Health are utterly flawed, the Department of Health is cumbersome and cautious, the HSE is a lumbering leviathan with no real direction other than self-preservation, and the Minister is preoccupied with surviving a potentially career ending stint in the mire of the Irish Health system.’
Consider this, with such a huge annual Health budget and such poor outcomes for patients alongside such terrible value for money, the dysfunction and paying for it becomes central to the rational of the organisation. They actually need this dysfunction. Without the dysfunction, they’d be screwed because there would be an open accounting of what we’re doing in a system which is delivering horrendous results.
He also criticises Stephen Donnelly’s policy of giving more money to the National Treatment Purchase Fund, which sends public patient overseas for treatment, arguing that ‘this is not the same as a really equitable national health system where everybody gets treated on the basis of need.’
He says that people could argue that in a free-market economy if someone wants to purchase health insurance it’s up to them: ‘However, that’s different to paying almost half a million a year to a CEO to perpetuate a dysfunctional system.’
He says the HSE is only interested in crises, ‘in things like COVID’ and saying ‘but COVID is why the system is screwed, or we’re dealing with the cyber attack, which has caused this perpetual dysfunction, which is, you know, all entirely untrue.’
His conclusion is ‘the managers, architects and political apologists for the segregated and morally bankrupt system have done an exceptional job of screwing the Irish people out of their tax dollar and their rights to health and dignity. I’m not sure they are capable of doing anything else. It’s time to demolish and rebuild.’
In response to COVID-19: how are we to explain people drawing starkly differing conclusions from the same data? To understand this requires a search for context and motivation.
In the second series of the Duffer Brothers Stranger Things, set not uncoincidentally in 1984, there is a critical scene in which the story reaches its conclusion. Murray Bauman, the experienced investigator and sceptic is confronted by Nancy and Jonathan, two of the series’ teenage characters. They present him with conclusive proof of events and happenings, apparently shattering all the certainties he had operated with until that point.
Pouring a large measure of vodka to steady himself, Murray contemplates what he has just heard before explaining to Nancy: “I believe you, but that’s not the problem… you need them to believe you… your priests, your postman, your teachers, the world at large. They won’t believe any of this.” He then clasps his drink close to his chest as if it’s a lifeline.
“You heard the tape,” Nancy insists, clearly frustrated.
“That doesn’t matter”, snaps back Bauman as he waves the glass in the air. People want to be comfortable, and this truth is uncomfortable. He takes another gulp of Vodka and grimaces. But it gives him an idea.
“The story,” he says. “We moderate it, just like this drink here, we water down the vodka … We make it more tolerable.”
The events that have unfolded since March 2020, when the pandemic began in Europe and the U.S., have been extraordinary by any standards.
After over seventy years of peace in the West, during which wars were fought on foreign lands, and apart from the occasional lurch to the left or right there has been political stability, democratic norms, a generally fair justice system and continuous growth in prosperity and education.
Moreover, infectious diseases have been all but conquered with new drugs and treatments. Combined with improvements in public health and nutrition we have seen life expectancy grow year on year in what appears a steady pattern. We have grown accustomed to continuous improvement in the standard of living and security. After seventy years of improvement, we have come to expect this to continue.
After such a prolonged period of peace even the idea of warfare – or it not being safe to walk the streets – is almost beyond our comprehension. Never before has humanity in the West been so removed from the terrors of war, the tyranny of oppressive regimes and the ravages of natural disasters or famine.
We get up each day expecting it to be exactly like the last and for tomorrow to be the same. We cannot contemplate a world that is not exactly like that of today.
Yes, we will have technological changes and workplaces will change, but fundamentally we expect everything to remain the same. Footballers will be paid too much money; screen stars will fall in and out of love with each other; war will break out in some far-flung land and a natural disaster will occur somewhere only to be forgotten and replaced in our consciousness by another somewhere else. Meanwhile, what really concerns us is reaching the gym on time after work, getting the kids to school and catching up on the latest Netflix mini-series.
So, what happened when we woke up one morning to a potentially fatal virus that was not happening on the other side of the world? By early March we had watched with indifference what was happening in China, but now it was here in our community.
Cases, first slowly but then steadily, began rising until on the March 11th 2020 we had our first death. Now it was for real; now for the first time in seventy years there was an immediate threat to our health and even our way of life.
We approached the pandemic within the paradigm of our world of seventy years of increasing prosperity and health. We believed we were invincible, that our medical community would protect us and that all lives were saveable.
For any illness there must be a drug. If we don’t have it today, we will have it tomorrow. We just need sufficient money and political will and it will be discovered. So, we laid down the challenge to the pharmaceutical industry to produce a vaccine, and all we needed to do was give them enough time to develop it, locking down hard until then.
In so doing, we revealed an aversion to risk and a failure to critically analyse the extreme, and erroneous, warnings on fatalities that were issued by politicians and scientists; strangely our media and politicians accepted the doomsayers and ignored optimistic assessments.
The WHO definition of health, as not just the absence of disease, but the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the individual, was ditched. We would get back to that once we found the vaccine and the virus was eliminated. The pharma industry took up the challenge and we sat at home watching Netflix until they told us they were ready.
Alternative approaches that involved natural immunity, and isolating the vulnerable as the Great Barrington Declaration advised, or applying early treatment with a range of therapeutic drugs were dismissed in a concerted attack by public health officials, doctors, universities, politicians, the media and in particular social media.
There was to be one response and no challenge would be allowed. Civil rights to freedom of movement and to bodily integrity were trampled on with barely a whimper in the mainstream media.
Emergency powers not contemplated since World War II were ushered through by the government without so much as a peep from the opposition or the media. Lockdowns were for the greater good; while the fear and panic that had been sowed ensured almost complete compliance and a demonisation of dissenting voices.
Compelling stories from reliable sources tell us of the more than reasonable possibility of the virus originating in the lab in Wuhan, but we don’t want to know. Valid alternative early-stage treatments, such as Ivermectin, shown to work in other parts of the world are not merely dismissed, but actively smeared.
Early stage VAERS data on vaccine safety, particularly in young males, is ignored based on thresholds that would have previously stopped approval of a vaccine. The fact that the vaccines have not passed long term safety trials is conveniently ignored.
Questions about how wide a spectrum of immunity is covered and the length of time immunity lasts is also overlooked. Boosters are unquestioningly accepted and used off-label, although no research exists on the possible impact to both short and long term health, and overall immunity. Public health concerns about the impacts of lockdown on society and other illnesses are forgotten. There is only one train leaving town and you are either in the vaccine carriage, or you are on your own.
So why did all this happen; why have we thrown away hard won civil rights; why have we allowed ourselves to be coerced into taking drugs, without what would normally be considered informed consent?
Why aren’t we desperately trying to investigate the origins of the disease? Why have we dismissed any and all alternative treatments? Why was the Swedish approach derided, and now treated as if it did not happen?
I guess it’s a case of too much, too soon. We craved the comfort of our old world so much that we accepted without question the solution offered; we were told this was simply “following the science”, as if “the science” was settled.
Once embarked on that path there could be no turning back. There could be no dissenting voices. There could be no alternative science. Voices straying from the perordained plan must be crushed at whatever cost.
So here we are now nineteen months later and it still not politically correct to say that perhaps we got it wrong. Most people are so desperate to return to our safe world, that to believe that, would be to recognise that we have been misled and badly informed throughout that time.
It would mean that doctors, much of the scientific community, public health officials, universities and the media have been participants or active orchestrators of the worst medical and public health mismanagement in modern history. That’s too much to take on board, the brain can’t compute, it overheats, dismisses, and attacks those who even suggest it.
So how will the story unfold? There is surely no question, but that the truth will out. As time passes we will acknowledge the errors. Then we will rue how it was ever possible for such catastrophic mistakes to occur.
I suspect posterity will not look kindly in particular on a medical community who, with a few honourable exceptions, sat back and watched the policies unfold. Who kept their head down and took the easy road.
As a society we invest in doctors, educating them and offering them considerable rewards. In return we expect them to look after our interests. We expect them to speak out on our behalf when they see injustice. After after what has just happened it may be difficult to regain that trust.
I wonder when will the serious post-mortem begin? When will data, evidence and outcomes start driving policies; when will marketing mantras and outright propaganda be left behind?
Will the story need to be watered down to become more tolerable? How much water do we need to add to the vodka?
Fear plays a major role in influencing the decisions we make and the actions we engage in. Research has shown that there are sound evolutionary reasons for this. The selection pressures from these types of danger have resulted in domain-specificity in the reactivity of the fear system, meaning that the system has evolved special sensitivity toward such dangers. However, ‘not all human fearsare instinctual and hardwired—we need to learn what to be afraid of.’[i] While this capacity is critical in helping humans deal with the different environments in which they find themselves and which present different sources of ‘danger’, it can also be abused by those seeking to advance their own interests at our expense.
Harnessing Fear in the name of ‘Sales’
The power of fear has long been recognised as a potential source of profit by the business world. Preying on anxieties and ‘creating’ new ones when required to suit their needs, marketing departments have managed to exploit human fears to successfully boost client sales. As Kali Halloway writes: ‘Listerine’s 1920s ads turned bad breath from a fairly common minor flaw into halitosis, a condition that made you into a social pariah, sexless and alone,’ – leading to an increase in sales in just seven years from $115,000 to over $8 million. ‘In the 1930s, Lysol – a product we now know should be kept as far from genitalia as possible – was marketed as a douche (and more covertly, as feminine birth control), in ads that basically told women no one would ever love them with their awful natural-smelling vaginas.’[ii]
Indeed, even the threat posed by pandemics have provided grist to the mill for opportunistic marketing teams, keen to leverage the fear generated in their diffusion. According to Barry Shafe, the former head of Cussons product development and man behind the launch of Carex in the UK during the SARS epidemic, ‘background noise of pandemic fear was all that was needed to drive consumers to antibacterial soap.’ There was no need to even emphasise the element of fear in their advertising for the project as ‘real fear sells better than invented fear.’[iii]
While the manipulation of the public’s purchasing choices through exploiting the evolutionary programmed and adapted prism of the human ‘fear emotion’, is at the very least questionable, it is only the tip of the iceberg in this respect.
Ad extracted from a scanned copy of the pulp magazine Weird Tales from 1950,
Fear and Hatred in Times of Plague
In times of plague and pestilence, fear is an omnipresent companion. This fear all too frequently translates into a desire to find someone to blame for the danger with which we are faced. The greater the threat to people’s safety and the less control they can exercise over it, the greater the risk that blame for their dilemma will be ascribed to an ‘outside’ group, generally those who are not members of one’s community or nation, no matter how transparently illogical the reasoning.
As Dr. Jonathan Quick writes:
We are all afraid of death. We respond to the fear of epidemic disease by wanting to blame someone else. Anytime a threat arises, we want to blame the “other,” those not like “us.” At the outbreak of the 1918 Spanish flu, Americans blamed “the Hun”. AIDS was blamed on gay men.[iv]
During the Black Death, which struck Europe in the mid-14th century, there was widespread fear and panic as this unknown disease wreaked havoc throughout Europe. Although communities around Europe often turned upon those seen as outsiders, particularly other nationalities, the Jewish community became the primary focus of this fear. This resulted in horrific instances such as the massacres of Jewish people in Frankfurt and Brussels and the extermination of the Jewish populations in Narbonne and Carcassonne.[v]
Representation of a massacre of the Jews in 1349 Antiquitates Flandriae (Royal Library of Belgium manuscript 1376/77).
‘Fake News’
The predilection to blame outsiders, the ‘other’ for the spread of infectious diseases, is further aggravated by the propagation and dissemination of false rumours. The author Maryn McKenna, who researched this phenomenon during the Ebola crisis came up with a term for this, ‘Ebolanoia’. Tracking public response to Ebola in the U.S., McKenna related how individuals and businesses that had been incorrectly identified as having been exposed to Ebola suffered as a result.
False rumors caused a small, long-standing, family-owned bridal shop in Ohio to close. Rumors forced healthy school personnel and students in North Carolina and Texas who had visited West Africa to stay out of school, even though they were thousands of miles from the nearest Ebola outbreak. Misinformation fomented harassment of African-born students as well as other acts of fear and discrimination.[vi]
The anti-Chinese messages currently being circulated in the mainstream media and through social media are generally linked by their proponents to a desire to hold China as accountable for both the spread and deadly impact of Covid-19. While some of these inferences have been less direct, casting suspicion and opprobrium on China and the Chinese people by association, others have given free rein to their racist impulses, such as the French newspaper that proudly displayed the headline ‘Yellow Alert’.[vii]
Dubious as these assertions are in the first place, they are made even worse by the conflation of ordinary Chinese people with the purported misdeeds of China, which has led to serious racist incidents and discrimination against Chinese people around the world. Furthermore, it behoves us to remember that the racist slandering of Chinese people is not occurring in an historical vacuum. It, in fact, stands on the shoulders on a substantial corpus of anti-Chinese racism that has been present for well over a hundred years.
‘Yellow Peril’
The likelihood that a specific outside group – ethnic, religious, etc – will be stigmatised and discriminated against, as well as the severity of the reaction, will be influenced by the history of how these people have been regarded in the past.
As a child growing up, I remember hearing the phrase ‘yellow peril’. I had no idea what this term meant or referred to apart from the fact that it in some way indicated a potential threat. However, like so many phrases that slipped into everyday usage, divorced from their original context, the phrase ‘yellow peril’ has an insidious and disturbing history. As Vince Cable, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, writes:
In the early years of the 20th century there was a deep fear among western societies, expressed both in politics and popular writing, that they were in danger of being overwhelmed by the Chinese: the “Yellow Peril”. Children’s comics were full of the exploits of the evil Dr Fu Manchu, a Bond-type villain bent on world domination. Even serious writers such as Jack London perpetuated the myth. In 1911, the British Home Office circulated material which warned of a “vast and compulsive armageddon to decide who is to be a master of the world; the white or yellow men”.[viii]
Anti-Chinese violence in Britain and the ‘Empire’
19th and early 20th century society in Britain overtly displayed its anti-Chinese sentiments. Racist depictions of Chinese were widespread in the media and this had a knock-on effect, impacting how they were dealt with by the judicial system and in other areas of daily life.[ix] Anti-Chinese feeling even led to acts of violent aggression against the Chinese community. Discussing the current racist violence against the Chinese in Britain, Suresh Grover of The Monitoring Groupexplains, ‘[T]he experience of racism against the Chinese community is not a new feature in British society” with “reports of race riots targeting Chinese businesses and laundries as early as 1919.’[x]
This racist attitude towards Chinese people was rife throughout the ‘Empire’. Schools were segregated in Victoria during the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century[xi] and in British Columbia Chinese Canadians were subject to social, economic and political segregation.[xii] According to OmiSoore Dryden the James Robinson Johnston Chair in Black Canadian Studies in the Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine:
Anti-Chinese racism has a long history in Canada — the Chinese head tax, the Exclusion Act, just to name two. Chinese people were often referred to as the “Yellow Peril” — a plague, something that would bring destruction to white people and colonial Canada.[xiii]
These racist incidents and stereotyping of Chinese was based on a sentiment of ‘white’ superiority over other races that justified a discriminatory treatment of these people. This feeling of racial superiority is perfectly captured in the following quotation from Edmund Barton, the first prime minister of Australia, when discussing the Immigration Restriction Bill in 1901:
There is no racial equality. There is basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races … unequal and inferior. The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman. There is deep-set difference, and we see no prospect and no promise of its ever being effaced. Nothing in this world can put these two races upon an equality. Nothing we can do by cultivation, by refinement, or by anything else will make some races equal to others.
Anti-Chinese Violence and Segregation in 19th and 20th century U.S.
An 1886 advertisement for ‘Magic Washer’ detergent: ‘The Chinese Must Go’.
It was racist stereotypes such as these that led to widespread discrimination and segregation of Chinese people, particularly in predominantly ‘Anglo-Saxon’ countries. In the U.S. for example there were many instances of white people violently assaulting Chinese communities. In 1885, 150 armed white miners forcibly expulsed Chinese immigrations out of Rock Springs (Wyoming), murdering 28 people and burning the homes and businesses of members of the Chinese community. This massacre went unpunished. This incident, however, was only one of many. As Brayden Goyette writes, in the 1870s and 1880s, there were 153 anti-Chinese riots that broke out in the American West.[xiv] According to the historian James Mohr:
…in Honolulu, doctors, colonial administrators, and the general US colonial population lamented the outbreak of bubonic plague in 1900 because it prompted fears that the city would become associated with Asia, where plague was then present… Ultimately, the public health authorities burned contaminated buildings, but fires spread beyond their control and consumed most of Chinatown in flames. Similar anti-Chinese responses occurred in San Francisco during the plague epidemic of 1900–04, when Chinese-specific quarantines were enacted.[xv]
The insecure environment within which the Chinese found themselves led to a process of self-segregation by the Chinese to safeguard their communities and families. As John Kuo Wei Tchen, chair of public history and humanities at Rutgers University and co-founder of the Museum of Chinese in America in New York explains, ‘[T]he Chinatowns we know today — in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles — are really the consequence of the exclusion laws, which created the conditions, between racism and the law itself, for segregated, isolated Chinatowns.’[xvi]
The continuing plague of Anti-Chinese Racism
According to Suresh Grover, the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis, saw a distinct increase in racist incidents against the Chinese community ‘due to the unsubstantiated smear that the disease had spread from a Chinese restaurant using illegally imported meat.’[xvii]
A 2009 review on the racism experienced by Chinese people, conducted by the University of Hull and The Monitoring Group (TMG), concluded that the Chinese community was subjected to significant level of anti-Chinese racism in Britain:
The UK Chinese people are subject to substantial levels of racist abuse, assault and hostility. The types of racist abuse suffered by the UK’s Chinese people range from racist name-calling to damage to property and businesses, arson, and physical attacks sometimes involving hospitalisation and murder.[xviii]
This racism can be quite insidious and permeate virtually every area of daily life, even where one might least expect it. Writing about the racism experienced by Chinese people, the actress Elizabet Chan describes how on her first role, ‘the Bafta-winning director chuckled to everyone on set that I’d trained in kung fu,’ and how in her field ‘any character who speaks in some kind of dodgy east Asian accent is considered hilarious.’[xix]
The racism that continues to permeate is inappropriately nourished by the racist tropes of our past. As Sophie Couchman, a curator at the Chinese Museum in Victoria state, states,
It is disappointing that the same language is still used, certain words we used in the 19th century to talk about Chinese immigration – ‘influx’ and ‘swamped’ – and it’s all these sort of monsoonal words.
Covid-19 and upsurge in anti-Chinese racism
The current Covid-19 crisis has seen a dramatic rise in racist assaults on Chinese people globally as a result of their stigmatisation on traditional as well as newer social media. A major contributing factor in this rise has been the reckless use of derogatory references to China by elected politicians. The most egregious example of this is of course the U.S. president, Donald Trump, who on numerous occasions referred to ‘coronavirus’ as the ‘Chinese virus’.[xx]
Trump has NO empathy or compassion.
This is what he looks like during an EPIC crisis that is #COVID19
In the U.K., there have been numerous incidents of violence perpetrated against Chinese people as well as other East Asian people mis-identified by their assailants as being of Chinese origin. Reported incidents include,
confirmed reports of incidents of serious assaults against Chinese students by large groups of white youth …abuse in supermarkets and Chinese owned Take-away businesses, racist graffiti on shop windows and physical violence on the streets or around international student hostels… a Japanese person … greeted as Chinese and then deliberately urinated upon … the attack on the young man from Singapore who was beaten up in February by youths who punched him in the face before shouting out ‘coronavirus’ .. on Oxford Street, one of the busiest streets in the world.[xxi]
Ireland has not been immune to this reaction on the part of its citizens, as was evident in the racist attack on a Chinese restaurant in Galway.[xxii] The anti-Chinese reaction, provoked by Covid-19 has also been widespread in Asia, where restaurants in South Korea displayed ‘No Chinese allowed’ signs in the early stages of the pandemic, Twitter users in Japan initiated the hashtag #ChineseDontComeToJapan trend and over 125,000 people in Singapore, added their names to a petition urging their government to prevent Chinese nationals from entering the city-state.[xxiii]
Promotion of anti-Chinese racism
The perfect storm of victimising the ‘other’, arises the ‘desire’ to blame the other for one’s predicament is seized upon by ideologues to promote their objectives or, in the case of political, business and religious leaders to cover up their own inadequate or misdirected efforts to tackle the threat. The willingness of prominent politicians with large constituencies of ‘followers’, to promote a ‘Blame China’ narrative has contributed significantly to the upsurge in the targeting of the UK’s Chinese and South East Asian communities.[xxiv]
There are two principal reasons why political and other major economic and social figures in the Global North are seizing upon this opportunity to stigmatize China.
At the broader level, the emergence of China, particularly in terms of its’ economic and technical expansion, has created unease and anxiety amongst many in both the US and Europe, as they fear their position of economic and political dominance is being threatened. As the journalist Patrick Cockburnobserves while:
Many politically palatable reasons… will be advanced in the coming months… the real charge against China is one of effectiveness. It has shown itself more competent than other powerful states in dealing with two world crises: the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic of 2019-20.[xxv]
A secondary and, in the case of leaders such as Trump who have completely mishandled the Covid-19 crisis, more immediate goal is to indict, criminalise and convict China in the court of public opinion, thus distracting from their own ineptitude in a desperate effort to revitalise their political prospects. Now, rather than being seen as the principal architects of the disastrous response to Covid-19 which has resulted in many thousands of death, political leaders in Covid-19 ravaged countries can depict themselves as righteous defenders of their nation’s security and safety against the new ‘yellow peril’.
Fudging Statistics
One of the major excuses for the political onslaught against China has been the alleged fudging of statistics on the number of fatalities and case incidents in Wuhan and how this may have impacted upon the measures the U.S. and Europe implemented to tackle the virus.[xxvi] The thesis appears to be that if more cases and more deaths had been reported early on by the Chinese authorities, this would have conveyed the seriousness of the threat to the political leaders in the U.S. and Europe. The authorities in these countries would then have taken the threat of Covid-19 more seriously and ensured appropriate measures were in place to minimise its impact on their countries and citizens.
Covid-19 was a new virus and therefore required a certain amount of time to be identified and its exact nature determined. It is more than possible that the number of fatalities and cases was greater in China than recorded and that its virulence was therefore underestimated initially. It is also likely that at the earlier stages many cases were not identified and that it was circulating earlier and more widely than initially thought. We have seen in the past week or so, reports emerging from several countries including, inter alia, France and the U.S, that cases were present well in advance of earlier estimations.[xxvii]Ireland probably also had cases prior to initially believed, as this coronavirus might actually have reached Irish shores as early as last year.[xxviii]
It is clear that if there was a significant excedent of cases and fatalities above those initially communicated by China to the international community that this could be argued to have made the new virus appear less threatening that it actually was. However, the reports on the level of fatalities and cases received by the international community were the same for all. Yet, despite this, countries such as Viet Nam, Singapore, South Korea, New Zealand, Cuba, and several others were able to introduce measures to effectively minimise the spread and impact of this coronavirus, others failed miserably.
A case in point is that of Viet Nam. In Viet Nam, as of May 7th, there were only 288 confirmed cases with no reported fatalities.[xxix] This low incidence of cases has been achieved despite the fact that Viet Nam has a population of over 90 million, shares a lengthy border with China, has a relatively weak health sector, compared to wealthier countries, and the inability to carry out widespread testing as was the case in South Korea. Critical to the success of Viet Nam in tackling Covid-19 has been the stringent and effective measures imposed by the authorities there, a united political will and the social discipline and unity of the Vietnamese people along with building on the lessons learned from dealing with previous epidemics.[xxx]
This would appear to indicate that irrespective of the validity of the charges against China with respect to their transmission of the number of cases and fatalities, the information provided by China was sufficient for appropriate prevention and containment measures to be implemented.
International Fudging?
Fellipe Lopes/Cassandra Voices
Furthermore, there is reason to doubt much of the figures that have been reported internationally on both fatalities and incidence of cases.
Ireland has encountered several difficulties in providing reliable and up-to-date statistics on Covid-19 in Ireland and adjustments have already had to be made to previously supplied totals. Ireland has also had issues with respect to delays in testing[xxxi] resulting in late updating of coronavirus figures, false negatives[xxxii] and the tragic case of an 89-year-old man who died of the virus before even receiving his results[xxxiii], which would appear to confirm the belief that we will see more amendments to the current totals further down the road. The accuracy of the numbers provided of people infected has also been criticised by members of the health service involved in treating patients directly.[xxxiv]
There are serious grounds on which to question the figures that the United Kingdom has reported. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the UK estimated that the actual number of deaths in England and Wales up to April 17, and registered to April 25 were some 23,000, some 6,375 higher than the figures by NHS England and Public Health Wales collectively, which were only documenting hospital deaths.[xxxv] However, on the 28th of April, the day before the UK started to include non-hospital Covid-19 related deaths, the Health Ministry announced the total deaths for the UK were 21,092 in hospital settings, still less than the number provided by the ONS for 11 days earlier and which only covered England and Wales[xxxvi]. The Financial Times in a report, which generated significant attention, estimated that, in fact, the actual death total in the UK would be over twice the figure reported.[xxxvii]
A further issue arises in trying to engage in international comparison of available statistics, in particular the fatality rate per confirmed cases. As it currently stands on May 7th, the number of confirmed cases in Ireland amounts to 22,385, with a reported mortality total of 1,403.[xxxviii] This is a mortality rate of just under 6.3 % relative to the number of confirmed cases. In the U.K., the total confirmed cases on the same day was 215,858, with 29,958 deaths recorded. This equates to a mortality rate of 13.9% of the identified cases. While allowance needs to be made for the fact that countries are at different stage of the Covid-19 curve, this can hardly fully explain the dramatic differences in these statistics.
Cooperation and Respect
As Patrick Cockburn writes, the approach of the Trump administration in promoting a form of cold war against China is highly irresponsible given the need at this time for a ‘global medical and economic response… to counter a virus that has spread from Tajikistan to the upper Amazon and can only be suppressed or contained by international action.’[xxxix]
It is not only in tackling Covid-19 now that such cooperation is essential. If we are to ensure the global protection of humanity, of all people wherever they may live, we need to establish an international framework through which we can all contribute to the future protection of our species, in an atmosphere of mutual respect free from discrimination and racist slurs.
As OmiSoore Dryden remarks,
…racist stereotype causes harm, not only to Chinese people and to Asian people, but to all of us. Viruses are not caused by a specific people. Gay people and African people did not create HIV. Chinese people did not create SARS or COVID-19. These types of racist stereotypes are diversionary tactics that do nothing to stop the spread of viruses.[xl]
The Way Forward?
Writing in 2004, Christopher Duncan, a zoologist and Susan Scott, a social historian, noted that since 1970, some 34 years, [A]t least 30 previously unknown infectious diseases for which there is no fully effective treatment have appeared… more than are known to have emerged in the preceding 3,000 years.”[xli]
The zoologist Peter Daszak, president of the New York – based EcoHealth Alliance, has researched coronaviruses and inter-species transmission of viruses in China. In 2013, he suggested that given the ability of coronaviruses to rapidly move between species, that it would be advisable to made an investment of about $1.5bn. which he estimated would enable the discovery of ‘all the viruses in mammals.’ This would permit the development of the required vaccines and test kids to successful cope with and stop the first stage of new infection disease emergences.[xlii]
If Daszak’s advice had been heeded when it was made back in 2013, it is quite possible that we might have been able to effectively stop Covid-19 at source or at least severely impede its progress, thus buying time for the implementation of the required measures to eradicate its threat. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing but while we can’t turn back the hands of time, we need to prepare for the future and other potential viruses. The past 20 years have seen the emergence of a growing number of infectious diseases– SARS, MERs, Zika… It is therefore imperative we come together as an international community and pool our cumulative resources to formulate policies and put in place measures to protect ourselves from future potential threats. The stigmatisation and abusive racialisation of nations or people has no place in this process and we must reject it absolutely.
Final Thought
As Prabir Purkayaashta writes, [T]he Covid-19 pandemic is only uncovering the deeper fissures that are already existing, and widening existing fault lines in the world.[xliii] We need to be vigilant to this, particularly the appalling legacy of anti-Chinese racism at this time, though we should also remember that the colonial empires of the European nations as well as the expropriation of U.S, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and other lands from indigenous peoples were based upon an all pervasive racist ideology that also targeted many other peoples.
I would just like to conclude with what a quotation from Melanie Coates which it eloquently summarises our current situation as well as how the current pandemic of anti-Chinese racism should be tackled.
In this torrent of fear and anxiety, we cannot afford to isolate people even more through stigma and xenophobia; we each have a responsibility to support each other and advocate for a better society. Those with the loudest voice—the government and media—must speak out to condemn these actions. They have a duty to educate the public, protect the vulnerable, and hold people accountable for prejudice and discrimination. By staying silent we let xenophobic narratives—specifically, anti-Asian sentiment—and racist attacks damage our society, the repercussions of which will likely persist beyond the pandemic.[xliv]
[iv] Dr. Jonathan D. Quick, The End of Epidemics: The Looming Threat to Humanity and How to Stop it, Scribe Publications, Brunswick (Victoria) Australia / London U.K., p. 18
[v] Sean Martin, The Black Death, 2007, Pocket Essentials Harpenden (Herts), p. 75
[xviii] COLE, Bankole, ADAMSON, Sue, CRAIG, Gary, HUSSAIN, Basharat, SMITH, Luana, LAW, Ian, LAU, Carmen, CHAN, Chak-Kwan and CHEUNG, Tom, Hidden from public view: racism against UK Chinese (Technical Report), Hull University and The Monitoring Group, 2009, http://shura.shu.ac.uk/10529/1/Cole_Hidden_From_Public_View_-_English.pdf
