Tapestries-19 | Lockdown from afar

What Melbourne's restrictions tell us about narrative, flexibility, and empathy.

I initially supported the tough decisions the Victorian government made in response to the COVID outbreak. Then it stopped making decisions, and started gas-lighting the population. It’s time for a change, both in policy and the way we treat each other.

—

I’ve had an unusual COVID experience. I have lived in New York for 2.5 years, and in the first week of March, found myself back home in Melbourne celebrating my engagement. In the days after we arrived, New York began to suffer through what would become a catastrophic COVID outbreak. What was meant to be a week-long visit turned into a stay of many months.

In the last six months, I’ve spent significant chunks of time in Melbourne, Los Angeles, Colorado and now New York. Each location has experienced the brunt of COVID to differing degrees, and each has responded in different ways.

As a Melbournian, I have watched from afar the imposition, then extension, of very severe lockdown restrictions. I acknowledge I am not there, nor am I experiencing the lockdown itself, but I do feel the experience through family, friends and colleagues. And as I sit here in New York, without much skin in the game, I have become quite troubled by the extension of the restrictions. I cannot help but think the government had its chance(s), achieved reasonable success, and is now failing to shift course.

The Victorian government’s response to the outbreak has been effective in some ways, and an abject failure in others. And in this, there’s a broader lesson to be taken about the state of the world.

The severity of Victoria’s lockdown

The severity of the restrictions was justified on the basis that the short-term pain would enable the state to return to a modified-normal, as soon as possible. I supported this, as the plan was coherent, understandable and despite the mental health and economic hardships it would create, defensible.

And by any measure, reducing the number of daily cases from greater than 700 to consistently less than 100, is a wonderful outcome, one the administration and the population at large should be commended for. But there must be an incredibly strong justification for extending measures that effectively strangle the life out of small business and subject a not insignificant number of people to real mental hardship.

One element of US culture that has rubbed off on me is the sacrosanct nature of individual liberties; while Australia is cut from a different cultural cloth, the bar for curtailing these liberties must still be very high. I can understand restrictions on business and congregating indoors, but I’ve yet to be convinced that curfews and outdoor exercise limitations are anything other than psychological tools.

In addition, there must be symmetry between the severity of the measures and impact on the spread: with very significant restrictions, there must be a very significant reduction in cases. In 6 weeks, cases have clearly come down, but not in a manner that suggests that the severity of the restrictions will lead to eradication. The question of the effectiveness of lockdowns is not the focus of this piece, but is a relevant element of the discussion around their validity.

The insistence on binary outcomes

The narrative from the government, to my reading from a distance, is based on two positions: (1) the prioritization of the state’s health over its economy, and (2) the belief that the economy cannot operate until the health situation is controlled. Both of these positions are defensible and valid, but the extension of the lockdown ignores the variable of time. Yes, the health of individuals is more important than the economy on an objective basis. But the statement that the economy cannot operate under the current situation must be subject to greater scrutiny; my experience in parts of the US tells me that this position is at the very least, debatable.

The constant deferral to the “modelling” sounds prudent, but anybody who has worked with models knows that they are rarely right:

“All models are wrong, many are useful, some are deadly” — Nassim Taleb

By now we know the government is “following the health advice”. And so they should. But the role of government is to balance the needs of different, and often competing, interests. Medical practitioners will clearly see the world through an epidemiological lens. And so they should. But to suggest that the current regime of restrictions presents the only path forward smells like an abdication of responsibility.

I am not suggesting the decision this week should have been to re-open the state; I am suggesting that to claim it is not possible is simply disrespecting the intelligence of Victoria’s residents.

The enabling of division

One of the most frustrating elements of the government’s approach - its insistence that “we must do this” - is the narrative vacuum it has left to both detractors and supporters. It feels, from afar, that suggesting the lockdown is unnecessary is a signal of an indifference towards suffering from the virus. Proponents of this view find support in the government’s insistence that “there’s no other way”, and the condescending tone with which that message is delivered.

Predictably, this position is being pushed by those who have deceived themselves into believing that they are the gatekeepers of empathy, there to highlight to others how they must sacrifice for the greater good. But true empathy is not about virtue signalling, it’s about placing oneself in the shoes of somebody else, and truly appreciating and respecting how their differences - in lifestyle, location, culture and socio-economics - cause them to arrive at a different view.

The narrative is broken on both sides. The detractors’ notion that the premier is now “Dictator Dan” is unwarranted when directed towards a person arguably acting in good faith. The supporters’ notion that pushing back on the restrictions is selfish, is disingenuous having regard to the different effects the lockdown is causing.

Both responses have been enabled by a government strategy devoid of flexibility and adaptability. A consultative approach, one that even gives the appearance of responsiveness, may go a long way to making people feel that they’re being heard, and avoid the development of entrenched narratives.

The erosion of trust

What I am seeing from New York, is an erosion of trust in Victoria’s institutions. It is being driven by an entrenched narrative - “we must do this” - trumping the views of regular, real people, who are being financially and emotionally flattened by the government’s actions.

What I am also seeing from New York, this time in the US, is a different situation playing out with similar results. It is a relatively tense time in the lead up to the election in November, and the Democratic and Republican parties are escalating their efforts in the lead up to what promises to be an historic few weeks at the polls.

But with the stakes so high, a large portion of the electorate, whether left-or-right leaning, looks at the respective parties and feels alienated by both and represented by neither. The parties, and the world they live in, are now being run according to abstract narrative. Each party maintains a narrative on the economy, the climate, the virus. Over time, each becomes abstracted from the real world effects felt by people on either side of the political spectrum.

This is the tragedy. In a world that twists itself in knots trying to “do the right thing” according to a particular ideology or accepted wisdom, we have lost the willingness to listen to the people the decisions, actions or movements actually impact the most. There is a pervasive view, held by the narrative builders themselves, that they know better.

COVID, police brutality, the climate and others: they are examples of issues where narrative now comes first. But while the ideological pissing contests occur in the press and on social media, real people continue to feel the effects: healthcare workers, small business owners, victims of police brutality and police officers themselves.

Bringing it together

We are where we are today because we continue to marginalize the views of those that don’t match ours. Where you undermine the validity of somebody’s views or beliefs, you create conditions for unrest.

Not wanting to defund the police doesn’t make someone racist. Wanting universal healthcare doesn’t make someone a radical socialist. And wanting to re-open the economy in a sensible manner doesn’t make someone indifferent to suffering. The willingness to see the world in reference to narrative and labels is tearing the US apart in the lead up to the election, and sowing the seeds of a meaningful backlash in Victoria.

I commend Dan Andrews and believe that he has earnestly been doing the absolute best he can, under enormous stress, in completely uncharted waters. But his consistency and anchoring have become counter-productive. I know he’s been listening, he tells us all the time; he just needs to start listening to someone else. The path to a change in leadership in the US lies in the challenger convincing voters that they will be heard. The path to a resurgent Victoria likely requires the same map.

—

Photo by Davide Ragusa