Full disclosure - This post is written from the perspective of somebody living in the UK who has long held views/possible bias on public non-numeracy and the decline of most journalism from investigative to click bait.
Having said all of that - I was struck by this 28/7 post which in summary sources a WHO online briefing which reportedly said as concerns COVID19 ....
"People are still thinking about seasons. What we all need to get our heads around is this is a new virus and...this one is behaving differently, Margaret Harris told a virtual briefing in Geneva, urging vigilance in applying measures to slow transmission that is spreading via mass gatherings. She also warned against thinking in terms of virus waves, saying: "It's going to be one big wave. It's going to go up and down a bit. The best thing is to flatten it and turn it into just something lapping at your feet."
Given that analysis what if there is no New Normal and the chances of a return to Back to Normal are minimal? What if what we face is Frequent Change and the ultimate fact check of Virus vs Spin? Here are some thoughts on those four perspectives.
Back to Normal - in more traditional communities/generations/groups the current environment is seen as a unfortunate glitch that will return back to normal once either COVID19 dies down or a vaccine is discovered. But what this seems to ignore is the tremendous economic forces COVID19 lockdown has unleashed which may lead to irreversible change whether or not a vaccine is discovered. For example:
- The additional acceleration away from bricks & mortar retail to digital;
- The inability of traditional film/TV to produce physical proximity drama and the triumph of non traditional in adapting to get round the physical proximity issue;
- It turns out working from home actually works for many occupations - so once office leases are up why would companies want to continue to pay for expensive city offices?
- And given that working from home often works - why would ex city workers need/want to live within a daily commuting distance from their work when they can live in more pleasant cheaper areas? (as long as they have good internet connectivity and a do-able now and then trip into the physical office).
- With fewer commuters into cities many food/retail/entertainment/office support businesses that rely on the commuters for business won't be viable. Maybe some of the premises these offices and support businesses vacate will return to residential? (but not at current city prices?).
- Whilst city property prices reduce businesses local to where people live may well still be viable and indeed prosper.
New Normal - is the phrase often used to describe where we are now. But of course there is no new normal. Whether its businesses sacking employees as the furlough subsidy comes to an end, or a Government deciding people holidaying in Spain need to 14 day lockdown when they return to the UK, or local virus flare ups needing localised semi/full lockdowns. Given these realities the phrase new normal seems to be a triumph of optimism over reality.
Plus sadly in the new normal we seem to continue to have a shockingly bad understanding of numbers. So in England at the moment in the Spain lockdown debate some spokespeople from the Spanish perspective have explained how the lockdown decision is unfair because of the difference between absolute COVID deaths per week in England and Spain. From a numeracy position what is shocking is that - in the two examples I heard of a journalist on a respected platform interviewing "Spanish" spokespeople vs the lockdown decision - when the spokesperson quoted absolute numbers none of the journalists challenged that statement with the fairly obvious "but what are the equivalent rates per thousand of population" type challenge.
Frequent Change - so if there is no new normal and no back to normal then maybe we are faced with frequent change. And that will be unsettling for many of us. Many of us don't like constant change - particularly where we have little or no control or say in it.
And where that is the case, then lack of agency often leads to resentment and anger and denial and stress - all of which look for some sort of pressure release valve. Often those pressure release ventings harm those we are closest to the most.
So maybe there is a real priority for helping people to be emotional articulate and intelligent without resorting to some formulaic CBT approach?
Virus vs Spin - in one narrative the era of excessive political spin emerged in the 1980's and just got bigger from there on in. That analysis maybe similar to the observation that the latest generation always assumes they invented sex despite all the evidence to the contrary.
And indeed the current spin response - for example to a government committee or review concluding government decisions were largely useless in dealing with X - seems to be along the lines of ignoring the facts of the criticism and responding with something like .....
"We have been addressing this issue with vigour and have committed £XX extra spending to improve the situation"
But in one aspect the current virus has political spin beaten in a way beyond what even the best fact checking organisations can achieve. Because the virus is without mercy in highlighting how many more people are actually dead or suffering.
And it leaves individuals to draw the line between the decisions Government made and how many people died or suffered as a consequence.
Perhaps all current governments face a judgement call from their electorate at the next elections. Perhaps they will find it harder to sway by spin and miss-direction - as they come against the electorates' lived experience with their family and friends - of the consequences of the government decisions?
