I’m not one for conspiracy theories. The dark truths behind seemingly banal developments do not fancy me. Global domination, secret societies, and a new world order are not buzzwords which I’m attracted to. And if you’re waiting for me to condition these statements with a “but,” I will remove the suspense by informing you that there will be none.
To my mind, the coronavirus is real. Its origins lie in nature and human choices and not in an underground laboratory. It is not orchestrated by an intelligence service nor does it have a nationality. It is an illness that caught humanity off-guard and is claiming lives, like viruses do.
What I am curious about is how the actions we took today are going to be assessed tomorrow, by ourselves ten years down the line or by our children a whole generation later. The future is a fair and oblivious judge at the mercy of the media and historians and those who fund them. Fortunately, all reasoning beings then alive and armed with a healthy suspicion against taking information at face-value will also have access to that future, untainted by any moderators should they wish. And so, when the damage is counted, the studies are published, and the fingers of blame are tired of pointing left and right and never toward oneself, we hope to extract the answers to the questions we can ask today – questions asked curiously, without judgement, and without agenda, against a clean slate of reason and thought, held back by little other than a disdain for unfounded assumptions and beautiful coincidences.
Questions such as did governments do too little too late? Or did they overreact? Did they act out of concern for safety or concern for their own seats? Was it the tribunal of history that coerced them to lockdowns? Or was it the public that inflicted the lockdown upon itself? And was that public as strict with itself as it is with its politicians? Were governments as strict with the public as they should have been?
Did some governments revel instead of recoil at the prospect of a state of emergency? Did they themselves turn their state into one of emergency? Was this a perfect opportunity to seek revenge from democracy and majority rule, to which they had kept themselves hostage for too long? If for a moment, did they view themselves infallible? For a good few months, did politicians experience what millennials call FOMO, or “fear of missing out?” Or instead of fear, could this have been their idea of “fun”?
How accurate was our understanding of the virus, its symptoms, its causes, and its lethality? Did my mask and gloves make a difference? Did six-feet-apart play a part… was it a random safety measure or was it really smart? Was it necessary, was it a compromise, or was it completely senseless – either because distance was never a factor… or maybe twenty feet was the proper number? And did we trust numbers too much or too little… were the numbers to be trusted in the first place? Were “coronavirus deaths” all substantially caused by the coronavirus… or did these screaming red numbers include cases where the virus was carried, but not the cause? But I digress, because could a death ever be reduced to statistics? Never.
And why, oh why toilet paper? Will we ever know?
Maybe. But maybe not today. And maybe not from politically-charged news or flashy conspiracy theorists. And these questions may be scoffed by the politicians and scolded by the doctors whom I deeply respect. But those reactions would still not be the right answers.
And even so, in the face of uncertainty and resistance, perhaps out of curiosity or possibility or mere hope, believing in the power of the question, I will rest my chin on my hand and continue to ask.
Chronicles 