Pericles’ Funeral Oration (Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, 2.37)
Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.
Plague of Athens (Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, 2.53)
So they resolved to spend quickly and enjoy themselves, regarding their lives and riches as alike things of a day. Perseverance in what men called honor was popular with none, it was so uncertain whether they would be spared to attain the object; but it was settled that present enjoyment, and all that contributed to it, was both honorable and useful. Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them.
Historiography is an act of authorship. The events unfold as the historian chooses to unfold them, in order to highlight and emphasize themes of the work. For Thucydides—who wrote during the period of the burgeoning art of rhetoric and sophistry in ancient Greece—one of the many themes of his history was the absolute necessity that words and language (logoi) MUST match reality/things/deeds (erga) as closely and particularly as possible.
When language approximates reality, then a society has a fighting chance to formulate policies that have the capacity of solving problems. When language does not approximate reality, then a society is simply shadow boxing the imaginary figments of its own mental perturbations, as reality itself continues to roll along.
Reality always wins.
This platitude is the crux of the matter with respect to the two excerpts of Thucydides above. It is one of the great narrative strategies of History of the Peloponnesian War that immediately after the Funeral Oration of Pericles—a piece of rhetorical art which celebrates the precise social and cultural virtues of Athenian democracy—follows the Plague of Athens—a profound ecphrasis of disease and social contagion, itself a narrative that disintegrates, atomizes, and deconstructs each and every social and cultural institution praised by Pericles. In marked fashion Thucydides juxtaposes logoi (in this case, the funeral oration) and erga (plague). The plague wholly unmasks the narrative of Athenian excellence and virtue.
The physical reality of plague illuminates the limitations of language to control and construct reality. There is always a gap between what is said, heard, and understood and what the fundamental truth of reality is. There is a semiotic fissure between language and reality. In fact, there is the very real possibility that language is always a nebulous approximation of reality, and at its best it can only ever approach that which is true without ever actually reaching the truth. At its worst, it denies that truth exists at all, and all reality is simply the social construct of the linguistic turn (fill in any number of examples from our current cultural moment). This tension between “words and things” continues to develop throughout the work of Thucydides, but the stark contrast between the funeral oration and the plague is the fundamental operating paradigm of the history.
It is also the fundamental operating paradigm of our COVID moment.
A tale of two diseases
*COVID is a respiratory disease which is transmitted primarily by aerosol spread, generally in closed locations with poor air circulation. Households are the main vector of spread. The outcomes of the virus are age and comorbid stratified. While there will be a few young and healthy people who may have a negative outcome from COVID, it is understood that this disease is particularly dangerous to the elderly and comorbid. Given that the disease is age and comorbid stratified we ought to have a policy that is age and comorbid stratified.
*COVID is a respiratory disease which is transmitted by aerosol spread, but also can be found on surfaces. Whether one is in a closed location with poor airflow or outside in the open air, one must be constantly vigilant of the disease. The disease can exist on surfaces. One must wipe down groceries and pizza boxes and all surfaces. Plastic barriers must be set up everywhere as air cannot travel up and over these barriers. Everyone is at risk from COVID. Young, healthy children and old, frail grandmothers are equally at risk. There is no distinction of what we mean by risk. Risk is risk. Even if you are lucky enough to survive COVID, you will get Long COVID. Never mind that we have always had long flu or that all respiratory viruses also have their “long” counterpart. Only Long COVID matters. Because everyone is at risk we must shut down society in case we overwhelm hospitals. Everyone needs to be afraid. You are likely spreading the disease and killing people. It is public policy to assume that everyone is sick and diseased. There is no other cause of death. COVID is the only criterium by which society operates.
I saw them masked in their cars.
They were alone, driving on a hot July afternoon.
The windows closed.
They were masked.
I saw them jogging along the canal.
It was morning.
The budding warmth of the sun shimmered along the water as they ran.
They were alone and masked.
I saw them on their bikes, riding through the park.
Alone.
They were masked.
I saw them waiting outside in line to a breakfast place.
Everyone masked, but when they went indoors and sat to eat, they took off their masks.
They swallowed pancakes soaked in butter and maple syrup.
The masks were made of cloth.
They wore surgical masks.
Sometimes you saw N95 masks, and sometimes a gas mask.
They were saving the world.
They were the good ones.
A tale of two masks
*Most masks are minimally effective at slowing aerosol spread of a respiratory virus. Cloth and surgical masks will have little influence on stopping the spread of the virus. N95 masks are effective so long as they are fit properly and properly used, something difficult to achieve in the general public. They even have significant limitations in health practitioner contexts. It goes without saying that if one is actively symptomatic, any barrier will certainly mitigate the spread of droplets, but if one is actively symptomatic, one should simply stay home in order to reduce contamination. We have known the science behind masks long before COVID and we should use what we know when it comes to rational and transparent policy.
*Masks are the key measure to stop transmission of COVID. If everyone simply wore a mask every second of the day, then COVID will end almost immediately. It doesn’t matter what kind of mask you wear. While each mask may have differing efficacy with respect to aerosol spread, so long as each of us wear a mask the accumulative effect will be to negate all aerosol spread of COVID. Sometimes you are wearing it to protect yourself and other times you are wearing it to protect others. We must all assume we are all sick, and we must all wear masks—cloth masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks—they are all effective and better than nothing. What is the big deal? Just wear the mask. The sooner we all wear them, the sooner COVID is over. Don’t be a callous monster, just wear the mask! While many studies have shown minimal impact of masks on respiratory viruses prior to 2019 we must dismiss these studies because policy experts have told us to wear the masks. The science has changed. COVID has changed everything.
*Enjoy the reading:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240287
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
https://escipub.com/irjph-2021-08-1005/
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/a-1174-6591
A tale of two vaccines
*The vaccines are an important tool in protecting people from COVID. That COVID is a disease that is age and comorbid stratified, it is vital that everyone over 60 and those, who suffer from comorbidities, be vaccinated. The vaccines will lower the risk of severe COVID among these populations and we must actively take care of these people. In addition, anyone else who wants the vaccine should have the ability to get the vaccine. But vaccination alone will not end the pandemic. People too must also have natural immunity. The double strategy of vaccine prophylaxis and natural immunity will result in lowering hospitalization and resulting in a more robust form of herd immunity than vaccination alone. But keep in mind, COVID is here forever. Yearly boosters need to be offered to the aged and comorbid, but hospitals must increase capacity during the seasonal surge. A new disease is here and the infrastructure needs to take account of it. While we were told that these vaccines were sterilizing and neutralizing and that two shots would end COVID, we now know that this was misinformation. This is unfortunate. One can still transmit and acquire COVID even if vaccinated. Corona viruses always mutate and will always mutate, and the vaccines do not negate mutation. This is frustrating, but it is better to be honest about the vaccine and its limitations. This does not mean the vaccines are a failure, it only means that they are a prophylactic. We also know there is the possibility of negative outcomes from the vaccines—rare as those may be. Because of the possible harm from the vaccines it is best practice that people have the option not to take the vaccine without any social stigma or coercion. We should also all be a bit worried that an accumulation of shots of the COVID vaccine—something that was not tested by Pfizer or Moderna—may come with pitfalls and hazards. We should be honest about the state of vaccination. Total and complete transparency is requisite.
*The vaccines are the only means by which we can end the pandemic. We need 100 percent vaccine compliance. Even if one person is not vaccinated that person alone can catalyze mutation and result in the total and complete negation of the vaccines’ effectiveness. While we initially said two shots would neutralize the virus, this was under the assumption of 100 percent vaccine compliance. We now need 3 or 4 or 5 shots. Everyone must take these shots. This is the only way. The vaccines are 100 percent safe and effective. Anyone who suggests there are negative outcomes from the vaccine is an antivaxxer. Since everyone is equally at risk from covid then everyone must get vaccinated. Natural immunity simply does not work. Natural immunity and the human immune system are simply not up to the task of COVID immunization. It needs an mRNA vaccine. While the vaccinated can still acquire COVID and transmit it, this is really the fault of the unvaccinated.
How did we get to this place? How did we get to a COVID paradigm in which competing world views on reality have come into being? How did our society become schizophrenic?
One set of tales above reflects the coincidence of language and reality. Sometimes the language has harsh truths, and reflects the limitations of policies or what can be rationally controlled when it comes to a virus.
The other set of tales above reflects that there is a fissure between language and reality. It does not matter if masks work, or if what we believe about COVID risk is true, or if what we believe about vaccines is true. The only thing that matters is the collective performance of embracing the mandates of the health regime, even if those mandates are not based in reality.
There is nothing noble about Noble Lies.
So how did we get to this place?
In a word: The Nudge.
The Nudge is the title of a book by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, published in 2008. The idea came out of behavioral economics. It offers an answer to the following questions:
How can you catalyze a population to choices and outcomes the government (or corporation) *thinks* are the proper choices and outcomes?
How can governments encourage particular behaviours?
Well, you “nudge” people.
Often times people are unaware they are being nudged. As they make their way to the climate protest, they are unaware that their activism against climate change was catalyzed by nudges. How does one “nudge” climate change? Call it a “climate crisis” or a “climate catastrophe” or say we have “ten years until we achieve a tipping point.” Of course, the outcome of nudges like this is a severe rise in mental health issues and anxiety among people who think the world will end in ten years because of cataclysmic ecosystem collapse, a scenario that is wholly the stuff of fiction. Who cares about the mental health crises in children so long as we nudge them where we want them, right?
The idea of nudging is nothing new. In fact, nudging is just a rebranding of the old term, “propaganda.”
The rhetoric with respect to the anti-vaxxer menace is wholly designed to nudge people into the health directives of the government. The rhetoric around vaccine passports, or health tax, or medical apartheid is, again, all designed to nudge a citizenry into the health directives of the government.
The employment of the term “risk” (without contextual implicatures) is a nudge. If there is a risk for everyone and the only way to end the risk is vaccination, then everyone must become vaccinated because of risk.
Also, vaccines are 100 percent safe and effective. Who would not take a vaccine if it were 100% safe and effective (in spite of what VAERS might say).
You have RISK and the total solution to that RISK.
All benefit, no cost.
Nudge, nudge.
Give me my fourth shot.
The central critique of “nudging” is not that our society has rebranded “propaganda” or that most governments employ behavioral science to catalyze public opinion and action. We accept that our current informational ecosystems are infused with propaganda and nudging.
The main critique is that in free and democratic societies policies need to be debated and discussed openly. If governments employ mass campaigns of “nudging” they essentially bypass the democratic process.
The debate never occurred.
People made decisions without ever realizing they made decisions.
Sometimes people just don’t know what is good for them.
These people don’t have PhDs from Harvard.
We need to nudge them into what is good.
But in the context of medical decisions, the nudge is particularly pernicious.
All medical decisions demand informed consent (though we have been nudged to think informed consent is quaint).
This includes COVID vaccination.
Can an individual accept a medical intervention through informed consent IF the individual has been NUDGED into the MEDICAL INTERVENTION?
But what if the language of the nudge, does not match reality? What if a nudge, for example, has no bearing on viral spread, yet the entire premise of the nudge is that it is designed to stop viral spread?
What if we are nudged into false realities?
How can we know, if the nudges themselves cannot be questioned?
We will know eventually.
Remember…
Reality always wins.
Just ask Pericles. He died during the Plague at Athens.