Mick Clifford: Christmas is cancelled? Have some perspective 

The fraying of social solidarity, the partial loss of perspective is having a negative impact on tackling the virus, writes Michael Clifford

Philip Nolan and his Nphet colleagues are all but begging people to abide by the new norms of distancing, isolation, and hygiene — and it is all for our own benefit. Picture: Damien Storan

Christmas may not be coming. 

So went one line of this week’s pandemic narrative. Would the decorations survive an extra twelve months in storage?

At the NPHET briefing last Wednesday the chair of the body’s model advisory group, Philip Nolan, broached the prospect of Santa self-isolating.

“We can still save Christmas, I presume, if we do the right thing over the next few weeks,” he said. 

Mr Nolan can’t be blamed for reaching for anything that might grab the public’s attention. 

He and his colleagues must be blue in the face from asking us to do the right thing for the last two months when quite obviously a small cohort continue to ignore them, and a larger cohort kid themselves that they’re not really ignoring the instructions.

But Mr Nolan’s inference that Christmas was up for grabs set off some more breast-beating across the media. 

Halloween has been sacrificed. Et tu, Christmas? 

Is there to be no end to this party-pooping?

Then there are the sacraments in the Catholic Church, ostensibly about the induction of children into a religion, but in reality occasions as much for adults as the inductees. 

Having been postponed in the spring the parties are facing further delays. Cue more breast-beating in the public square.

Some of those affected rush to decry this imposition on the seven and twelve-year-olds as if it represents a form of trauma that will haunt them for the remainder of their, hopefully, long lives. 

Does it really matter that much at a time when a pandemic is devastating half the world?

How does the postponement of communion compare to the losses, for instance, being suffered by children with disabilities? 

The disadvantages this group suffer are greatly inflated in this time of Covid.

Weddings are back on the agenda. 

Once more restrictions and postponements are being imposed on these gatherings that represent a major life event. 

That is very unfortunate. In ordinary times this restriction would be worthy of major sympathy. But these are not ordinary times.

When it’s all over, when the fear has gone, weddings can be reprised in style.

For the remainder of the hopefully long matrimony, the partners will have something to really remember about their wedding day and ultimately material with which to regale their grandkids.

Do the restrictions on weddings matter a whit compared to the plight of those robbed of another, more primal, life event? 

The funeral ritual is a staging post in grieving. 

That can’t be processed to any extent at all at the moment. 

Leaving this world has never been so mundane, so cold, so discomforting to those left bereft of a vital ritual of bereavement.

Weddings have been cancelled, yes. But when this is all over, when the fear has gone, they can be reprised in style. File Picture: Pexels

We have in recent months heard many stories about the restrictions in maternity hospitals, particularly concerning the absence of fathers at birth.

This is very unfortunate and anger would be a proportionate response in ordinary times. 

But where ranks such a loss compared to that of a prospective mother who has nobody to support her immediately on hearing that she has, or will, suffer a miscarriage?

Perspective has gone missing in this pandemic. On one level, some people are understandably reaching for a semblance of normality. 

Everybody is fed up with being fed up at this goddamn virus. But as it continues to infect and terrorise any semblance of solidarity is fast disappearing. 

Increasingly, a lot of people are finding it more difficult to view the pandemic other than through the prism of their own lives.

Sometimes, that view can’t offer anything beyond inconvenience, annoyance, frustration and even resentment. 

In such a milieu, the plight of those who are suffering most recedes in the collective consciousness.

Serious questions can be asked about the handling of this pandemic by government. Could testing, and particularly contact tracing, be done better?

Why has there not been even greater urgency in increasing the number of ICU beds in the health system over the last six months? 

Are we doing all that is humanly possible in tackling the virus in congregated settings?

These are questions being grappled with by many governments in the democratic world – authoritarian regimes have it much easier – but governments alone cannot make the crucial difference. 

Taoiseach Micheál Martin. Picture: Clare Keogh

The fraying of social solidarity, the partial loss of perspective is having a negative impact on tackling the virus.

How much perspective informs public attitudes to restrictions? 

The latest research from the Department of Health shows that 64% of the public are in favour of more restrictions. On the face of it, this suggests that the nearly two-thirds of people believe that the health and safety of the nation requires more attention from the public.

But who pays the price? On the podcast advertised on this page, the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this week answered that question.

“It’s the lower-income groups, young people, the marginalised, who suffer most in lockdown. That’s the reality we have to factor that in. I think it’s worthwhile that we give level 3 nationwide a shot,” he says.

 

Believing that the country needs tighter restrictions is a lot easier when it is others who will have to pay with their livelihoods. 

We have seen already from exchequer returns on tax that there has not been a major dip in receipts, which suggests that the hundreds of thousands now out of work are from the low paid sector below the tax net.

Would nearly two-thirds of the public still be in favour of tighter restrictions if they came with, say, a small levy on middle and upper-income earners to contribute towards the impact on those most exposed?

The other nugget to emerge from the Department’s survey this week is that just 67% of people say they are following the Department and HSE guidelines on stopping the spread of the virus. 

Despite all the devastation and death for some, the disruption, imposition and restrictions for many, one-third of the public are still failing to do what is asked of them. And that, take note, is a self-assessment. 

In all likelihood, the figure of non-compliance is probably much higher.

This pandemic has unended life as we know it. 

A terrible price has been paid by some and a very high price is going to be paid by many more in the coming years. 

And then there is the majority who will have been inconvenienced and are annoyed and plain resentful at the disruption and reduction in quality of life.

A little perspective would go some distance in recognising and perhaps comforting those who are going through a life-altering experience in many different ways.