What was it that the Scholar wished to convey through all the verbosity of the prose? It flitted like a butterfly from one topic to another related to the specific leaders, maybe to justify the title. The writer is of the opinion that the analogy between war and the’ efforts to contain’ the virus are not true. And this lengthy rambling piece was written to justify it.
Let us be clear, this is a war effort against the virus. The two sides to this are the virus and the people. The present effort is similar to a siege, where we hang on with minimum casualties, till a vaccine is developed. And towards this some freedoms are curtailed, more specifically the freedom of movement. The objective is to ‘minimise calsualities’, remember? We do not want infected persons a free run of the country to spread it far and wide blissfully aware or unaware as the case may be. This is the short run to massive death figures in our country. The people have to be contained within their homes to minimise infections from others. In case anyone is infected, it would be easy to arrange for quarantine of the members of that household. The whole objective is to hang on and survive with minimum deaths. Taking the migrants case, there have been reports of 2 deaths due to exhaustion, and none due to hunger. In contrast there have been upwards of 65 dead due to the infection.
So what do sane societies prefer, between right of movement and right to life? Except for some morons, the latter obviously.
Last but not the lease, war brings a nation together like nothing does. In this time of grim tidings, isn’t it preferable for the people to work together with the government to fight this common enemy? The government alone sure can’t.
What was it that the Scholar wished to convey through all the verbosity of the prose? It flitted like a butterfly from one topic to another related to the specific leaders, maybe to justify the title. The writer is of the opinion that the analogy between war and the’ efforts to contain’ the virus are not true. And this lengthy rambling piece was written to justify it.
Let us be clear, this is a war effort against the virus. The two sides to this are the virus and the people. The present effort is similar to a siege, where we hang on with minimum casualties, till a vaccine is developed. And towards this some freedoms are curtailed, more specifically the freedom of movement. The objective is to ‘minimise calsualities’, remember? We do not want infected persons a free run of the country to spread it far and wide blissfully aware or unaware as the case may be. This is the short run to massive death figures in our country. The people have to be contained within their homes to minimise infections from others. In case anyone is infected, it would be easy to arrange for quarantine of the members of that household. The whole objective is to hang on and survive with minimum deaths. Taking the migrants case, there have been reports of 2 deaths due to exhaustion, and none due to hunger. In contrast there have been upwards of 65 dead due to the infection.
So what do sane societies prefer, between right of movement and right to life? Except for some morons, the latter obviously.
Last but not the lease, war brings a nation together like nothing does. In this time of grim tidings, isn’t it preferable for the people to work together with the government to fight this common enemy? The government alone sure can’t.