Tapestries-40 | On the other side

What the responses to a piece about Australia tells me about the country's approach to COVID, and why we're reaching a point of no return.

Welcome to the many people who recently joined Tapestry, our numbers have swelled! I received a pretty significant response to the previous piece about Australia, so I figured it would be useful to write a follow-up. I hope to return to different topics shortly, but in the meantime, welcome, and I hope you enjoy this and future pieces too.

---

---

---

My recent piece about Australia and COVID generated a lot of traction. Based on the responses I've received, it hit a nerve with Australians living overseas who are feeling a combination of bewilderment and abandonment. It also seems to have hit a nerve with Australians at home who are living through a period of despair, futility and escalating anger. If nothing else, I’m glad the piece helped articulate what many seem to be feeling.

With the piece now having reached a much wider audience than expected, both overseas and at home, it has been subject to a broader range of views than I had anticipated. This is a really good thing, and the responses from this wider audience have been illuminating, and provided the catalyst for this follow-up. Having reflected on the piece and its responses, and watched a further deterioration in Victoria, my conviction in my original views has only strengthened, and perhaps even added a darker twist. I’ll discuss the responses first, and then add some further reflections. Here goes.

The nature of the responses

I think it's easy to explain why certain people appreciated the piece. It expressed a view on where our country is heading and what we stand for; it's therefore no surprise that it resonated with anybody who has concerns about our country's status on either of these questions. It's also clear why it resonated with those fed-up with the incompetence of the country's COVID response. These responses were great and ingratiating, but not particularly surprising. What has been a lot more interesting is reading the bases on which people didn't like the piece.

I really enjoy engagement with my writing because it brings accountability to my thinking. This is especially so with opinions that challenge my views, and I really appreciated this type of feedback on the original piece. The negative feedback was constructive because it forced me to consider some different perspectives, and because also it made me realize the problem at home runs deeper than I thought: certain narratives are entrenched, and we can only progress by breaking their grip on our conversations.

Taking a look at the some of the perspectives offered

Of the challenges to the views expressed, I thought these three were interesting and worthy of taking a closer look at, both to contemplate the opinions and points made, and also to consider what they actually say.

Perspective #1: Some readers suggested that doing anything other than what we're doing right now would invite mass death on a US-2020 scale.

A very common response to the piece was along the lines of: "what you're suggesting will lead to the deaths of our grandparents, parents and maybe even our children" or similarly "the US has lost over half a million people to this disease, do you really want us to share the same fate?" I think these responses say very little about what I actually wrote, and speak volumes about what seems to be the mindset of a large part of the population.

The exact point of the COVID-part of the piece was to push back on this line of reasoning. I said "by all means, maintain strict border controls, but stop perpetuating a false binary where you have to choose between submitting to imprisonment in your homes, or bodies in the street." I acknowledge Australia has dug itself a hole and is in a mess of its own making. It cannot fully re-open because of the combination of the Delta variant and un-vaccinated population, and therefore has to rely on a range of restrictions. I am not suggesting that it should fully re-open, and acknowledge that some restrictions must remain. I am simply saying that there needs to be a legitimate conversation about whether the current regime—with its draconian and inflexible approach, nonsensical restrictions, undeniable cruelty, escalating non-compliance and severe economic and broad healthcare costs—is the only way an unvaccinated country can deal with this disease in August 2021.

Not every criticism of Australia’s approach is an implicit endorsement of another country’s approach, and it was telling to see how some interpreted it in this way. Some of the responses (1) read something into it that wasn't there i.e. the suggestion we should open up and bear the consequences, or (2) took a critique of the current approach to imply a willingness to let our grandparents, parents and even children potentially die on a scale reminiscent of the tragedy witnessed in the US.

Some of the responses therefore revealed an entrenched model of the world, one that interprets everything through a single, unchanging prism. When you have entrenched models and narratives, all incoming information is bent to fit and confirm an existing view; information exists either to validate one's own virtue, or to support the view that the "other side" is idioitic or callous. This doesn’t bode well for making any progress.

Perspective #2: Some readers thought that contemplating anything other than sucking it up and copping more long-term restrictions, or considering living normally, is somehow selfish

Like many others overseas, I have legitimate reasons to come home to Australia. My entire family is in the country. I need to attend the US consulate there. I want to get married at some point in the future. None of these are objectively selfish desires, and it is my right to enter the country as a citizen. Is it entirely acceptable that it is difficult to get into the country and that many normal activities are currently restricted or cannot go ahead? Yes, we are indeed in a pandemic, and given state and federal governments' incompetence, we have no choice but to live with many restrictions. And to be clear once again, I am looking for absolutely zero sympathy for my situation; these are not pieces about my COVID-plight.

But interestingly, some of the responses to the piece made it very clear that even stating an intent to visit was some sort of selfish act that showed a willingness to endanger people's lives. This shows how far we've fallen, that citizens currently overseas—those who are fully vaccinated, will be tested, and will fork out the exorbitant sums to fly and quarantine in a hotel room for two weeks—are still somehow asking for something that's considered selfish or outside the realms of possibilities.

While I don’t agree with this response, I understand where it comes from. When your world is repeatedly confined to the walls of your own home, I appreciate that the thought of someone flying into the country seems alien. This type of response is therefore a product of some Australian’s current reality, and the government's propaganda campaign. The "we must do this" and "there is no alternative" narratives are reigning supreme. The incessant, sneering and condescending message has infiltrated Australian minds; regular citizens are now the the foot-soldiers of a dishonest narrative. Again, I can understand the response if I put myself in certain people’s shoes, but that doesn’t make it any less troubling.

People appear to have forgotten that indefinitely postponing life is not a trivial thing to do. It seems like a large part of the population has been willing to let go of the right to a normal life, because they’ve been convinced that any semblance of living normally is selfish, and implies waves of death and destruction. This in itself is terrifying: a democratic government and free press successfully convinced a majority of the population to give away their freedoms, and more than that, to do their bidding by chastising anyone who suggests that perhaps there's an alternative to the current approach, or that the cost of living this way exceeds the benefits.

Perspective #3: Many comments re-iterated that the Delta variant is really dangerous, and that it’s “no joke”

This was a point made in many comments, some of which went on to list the virus’ attributes, like transmissibility, impact on younger people, viral load, breakthrough infections, long COVID and required vaccination rates for re-opening. This is a valid point: Delta has changed things and it’s clearly a more dangerous form of the virus. But that’s only part of the story. If we based all policy on the risk characteristics of certain situations, we would never get anything done.

What we need is a discussion about what level of risk the community is willing to bear, while still noting the dangers posed by the new variant. If we acknowledge we eventually need to go back to living normally at some point—whether in three months or two years—then there has to be an open and frank discussion about what we’re willing to live with, whether framed in number of hospitalizations, strain on the hospital system, or unfortunately severe illness and death. But to many Australians now, even suggesting the need for this conversation effectively results in one being cast as a sadistic axe murderer.

A response that focuses on the danger of the virus is the same one that the government has used to such great effect i.e. “it’s seriously dangerous,” “this is no joke,” etc. etc. This messaging has been so successful and become so entrenched because there is very little one can say in response to objective facts about a virus. But it’s also a false premise; the debate is not about whether a virus is dangerous, the debate is about whether what we’re doing in response is reasonable in the circumstances.

We must be able to openly talk about what normal life looks like at some clearly defined point in the future, because if the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that there may be another variant, and that the government and its current approach probably won’t be up to the task when it arrives. And to those suggesting we have a plan, forgive me for having incredibly low trust; we’re 18 months into “two weeks to flatten the curve.”

What does it all mean?

I came across a great quote recently, from the great (and recently passed) Clive James, an Australian-born writer, critic and all-round remarkable personality. He said:

"the problem with Australians isn’t that so many of them are descended from prisoners, but too many are descended from prison guards.”

What a line in a career that had more memorable ones than most. It captured a lot of what I think is going on in the national psyche. We seem to have this bizarre obsession with rules and compliance. We may kick up a fuss if we disagree with them, but then we invariably retreat to a form of begrudging but passive compliance. Take the actual rules or restrictions as a live example.

It seems that many people in Australia are not strictly complying with the current regime of lockdown restrictions. In reality, non-compliance is a feature of all policy; widespread non-compliance is a feature of bad policy. And I don’t mean “bad” as in mis-directed, I mean “bad” as in not working. If there is widespread flouting of certain restrictions, that represents a policy failure. And ultimately, accountability for bad policy and non-compliance must stop with policymakers. Somehow people are being asked to shoulder responsibility for compliance, without being given any symmetrical responsibility for managing their own risk.

While it seems some are acting selfishly, one is not necessarily “selfish” or a “bad person” if they do not comply with all the restrictions. But the tone of the response from the strict rule-followers is telling: they vehemently denounce “rule-breakers,” while in all likelihood themselves flouting some rules in what they consider a benign manner. They call the police on neighbors who “have someone coming over,” even if that someone is coming to help an older relative or young mother. The prison guard mentality seems alive and well. This entire section of the The Age letters is devoted to people calling out "selfish" behavior at building sites and Albert Park Lake. Only in a country of rule junkies would the population's ire be directed at non-compliance instead of an overarching lack of competence or sensibility.

I have seen prominent people suggest that Australia is in its current state of lockdown because of the selfishness of people not following restrictions. Maybe I'm missing something by being far away, but the energy of a self-policing population seems undeniable, and incredibly ugly. Let’s be crystal clear once again: Australia is in it’s current position because of our leader’s incompetence, not because some construction workers aren’t wearing masks. Get angry, but don’t take it out on each other. The vindictiveness is on show, and it’s ugly.

Bringing it together

COVID-Zero was successful early on, saving lives from COVID, but the collateral damage is now too much to accept. My last piece touched on the potential long-term harm to Australia’s brand globally. But now I worry about the potential long-term harm to Australia’s way of life. Startlingly, as this piece described (paywalled but one I recommend) in reference to the situation in Great Britain, we are also starting to see in Australia:

“that commitment to the value of individual freedom, far from being robust as a coil spring, is fragile as glass.”

Australians are living in a police state, and for many, the toll is becoming too much to bear. And as this piece lays out in heartbreaking detail, the costs are extreme and mounting. I find it truly staggering that many people still believe the current approach, and its singular focus on COVID cases, adequately balances all relevant costs and benefits. A few things are clear today: our politicians approaches haven’t worked, the health advice has at times been confusing and misleading, and people and our nation are truly suffering. These are conditions that should compel an honest conversation and reckoning, not a retreat to our base desires to blame and divide.

What should we do? First, we have to start by removing certain restrictions that are so non-sensical that they would be laugh-out-loud funny if they weren’t so cruel. Second, we must start an open conversation about what living with COVID looks like in terms of potential spread, collective risk, hospitalizations and unfortunately, deaths too. And to be clear, suggesting that deaths may unfortunately occur does not make one a psychopath. This conversation must honestly include the real and documented healthcare, mental health and economic costs of the current approach. What’s measured gets managed, and there’s no clearer and visible measurement than daily cases numbers; but below the surface, the emotional and economic carnage is piling up, and will take an enormous amount of time, effort and money to heal.

We must stop treating people like children to be punished and castigated, and instead treat people like adults, and begin allowing them to make their own risk assessments. This shouldn’t be controversial. If you think this government has the vaccine silver bullet and will actually relinquish its hold once the mystical and difficult 80% level is met (let alone 90%), you haven’t been paying attention; we are watching governments in real-time be unwilling to loosen their grip on control. Lastly, the Prime Minister should do his job and actually lead the country; that the states and their different remiges have run wild and divided us into parochial colonies is an indictment of his leaderership. Restrictions must remain in place for some time, I get that. The country cannot “open up,” but it also cannot live with its current regime of restrictions indefinitely, and the starting point is Australians demanding a more honest accounting of what’s worked and what hasn’t, and collectively deciding what’s to come.

The responses I received to the original piece—both good and bad—were all constructive and strengthened my conviction in the views it expressed. Our country does need a fundamental shift in direction, and it must start with its people. A nation that blindly and uncritically follows rules, and holds people who challenge those rules in contempt, is not a healthy nation. From afar, it feels like Australia is simmering, angry and fracturing; the despair and bewilderment from family and friends is real and concerning; people are at the end of their tethers with no legitimate end in sight. Anger and division are growing, and the restrictions are showing no sign of easing, both in the short-and-medium term. At a minimum, that must force us to consider how we got here, and what it is that will lead us out. Because I fear we have crossed a rubicon, and that when this mess is over, the country that will emerge will be irretrievably different from the one that entered it. We need to start asking, what will emerge on other side?

---

Photo by Martin Sanchez on Unsplash

---