The fact that both the Prime Minister and
the heir to the throne of England have been hit by coronavirus certainly tells
us that the virus is no respecter of social status – anyone can catch it. But that does not make it the great leveller
which means that we are ‘all in it together’, which is the conclusion which
some have dishonestly attempted to draw.
Whilst the disease itself does not discriminate,
the response to it does. Those who are
able to self-isolate in one of their palaces can call on a medical team from a
local hospital to go and assess them; those in high office can get tests very
easily, and some can even, apparently, get an intensive care bed purely ‘as a precautionary
measure’. These are not responses
available to the vast majority of those suffering from the disease.
It goes further than that, though. The less well-off and ethnic minorities also
suffer a disproportionate
degree of infections from this disease as from most others. The ability of the virus to infect anyone
shouldn’t blind us to the fact that there is a significant difference in probabilities. Viral infections are just one of the ways in
which inequality kills.
Posts
2 comments:
I wonder how you know so much about this virus. No respecter of social status, non-discriminatory, an ability to infect anyone. Strong stuff, but is it really true?
The 'less well-off' are in fact much better at coping with disease, any disease, than the mollycoddled middle classes. It's just that there are so many more 'less well-off', more do indeed die.
Inequality certainly kills. But so do this virus. Especially if you are male, old and have an underlying medical condition.
”I wonder how you know so much about this virus.” I don’t claim to be an expert. I do, though, claim to be able to read and to understand the difference between fact and fiction.
”No respecter of social status, non-discriminatory, an ability to infect anyone. Strong stuff, but is it really true?” Yes, it is true. It’s what we non-experts call a ‘fact’, evidenced by what actually happens.
”The 'less well-off' are in fact much better at coping with disease, any disease, than the mollycoddled middle classes.” This, on the other hand, is what we call ‘fiction’. There are countless studies relating to a whole range of diseases and illnesses which highlight the differences in mortality rates correlated with income. Life expectancy itself correlates strongly with wealth and income. That doesn’t mean that poverty ‘causes’ those deaths directly (the diseases do that) but it does tell us that poverty affects both the probability of suffering many illnesses and the likelihood of recovery. In that sense, albeit indirectly, poverty and inequality kill.
”It's just that there are so many more 'less well-off', more do indeed die.” Yes, of course. But there’s also a higher probability. The word I used was ‘disproportionate’. I know it’s a long word but try a dictionary.
”Inequality certainly kills. But so do this virus.”(sic) Yes. But you’ve not understood the point – one of the ways in which inequality kills is through the probability of suffering particular illnesses and the probability of those illnesses resulting in death. ‘Probability’ is another long word, of course – same advice applies as above.
”Especially if you are male, old and have an underlying medical condition.” Yes, and if you’d added ‘less well-off or from an ethnic minority’ to the list we might have been able to agree on something.
Post a Comment