COVID19 – The box of Pandora

I felt the disaster coming as soon as COVID19 started to spread in Europe. Until then, like in 2002/2003 with SARS, I thought, not unlike many:

ah.. it is in Asia, this thing will never get here!

Guess what: It got here and it got here fast!

With this article I try to explain what I mean by “disaster”.

I am not talking about the high amount of people who will die. The deaths we will/do see is very sad, but I think we can cope with that, sooner or later, one way or the other.

I am also not talking about the lockdown measures, their efficiency and if they are/were appropriate.

The real disaster will be the opening of the “Box of Pandora”.

I already wrote a German article on coil about this, but it miserably failed to get acknowledged. Too complicated written I guess.

So I was trying to make the subject easier to explain. Thinking about how I could achieve this, I was trying to get a feeling on my thoughts on Twitter. Slowly it dawned on me how I maybe could explain this in a very simple way.

Let us see if I get it right this time.

Background for this article is the criticism our governments all around the world are facing:

Then as soon as the curves start flattening out:

Let me get this straight:

The infection curves are nowhere near close yet to the levels when the governments started to put measures in place. So all those who shouted initially: “do it faster!”, they now also have to wait until we reach those lower levels again. The risk of too fast loosening up the taken measures could be severe.

And both times, at the beginning of the measures taken and now once the infection curves start to flatten, everyone knew: We have to protect our economy. The ridiculous part about this is the fact that sometimes the same people who wanted faster more rigid measures to protect their countries from widespread COVID19 disease, are the same ones who in the second phase shout loudest to get rid of the measures as fast as possible.

But this article is not about the measures taken.

Let us take a step back:

What happened in most governments around the world once they realised, in some places a bit earlier, COVID19 will hit their country?

Lockdowns were put in place. In some countries faster more rigid, in other countries more subtle and adapted to the culture of the country. Some countries tried first one strategy and then turned around 180 degrees to follow another one.

But this article is not about which strategy is the best to contain COVID19, it is about the after math we will be doing eventually.

But before we can look at the after math, the Box of Pandora to be opened, let us first try to understand why these lockdowns occurred, almost world wide.

Lockdowns were put in place to protect the country from too many deaths caused by COVID19, right?

What are the characteristics of such a lockdown? Can we compare this to something we understand easily? I think we can!

Everyone is aware of the concept of “insurances”. We insure everything. Switzerland is maybe the country of insurances. It is a well known fact that we, here in Switzerland, are over insured. Sometimes 2-3 insurances cover the same stuff.

What is the purpose of an insurance? Its purpose is to protect something collectively which a single individual could not protect himself due to lack of required resources.

Let me give you an example.

All those who have a car know the “car insurance”. It protects you from high bills you may have to pay in case you are responsible for an accident in which you are involved.

We, car owners, accept the fact that we pay a small amount of money each year which protects us from eventual financial ruin/disaster. We accept this, paying the insurance fees, although we think: I will never have an accident, even less be responsible for it!

But there is a slight doubt lingering in our minds that there exists a small, but real, probability, that indeed we may have an accident which incurs high value bills we have to pay to cover (protect us from financial ruin) the wreckage we produced.

That slight doubt is reason enough for us to accept paying insurance fees.

So an insurance is about “probability”. Had we 100% certainty an event will never happen, we would never insure our stuff against this event paying fees. After all we would know: the event will never happen, so why protect it!

But as soon as this certainty is not 100% anymore we start thinking about protecting, insuring, our goods. The higher the likelihood, or probability, of an event occurring, or the higher the impact on the value of the thing we want to protect, this could be our own lives, the higher the chance we pay a fee to protect us at least financially from a disaster.

But how can a car insurance cover high costs I might have in the future? In my whole life I never pay as much fees in total to the car insurance company as I might create in damaging other cars.

So how is this possible?

Here comes the other important characteristic of an insurance: collectively.

Because thousands, if not millions, other car owners have the same small doubt lingering on their minds, they might be responsible for damage on other cars in the future, they as well accept paying a small fee every year to protect them from financial ruin.

Insurance companies are excellent in math. They know exactly how many accidents occur. They know exactly how much damage will occur. So they can figure out how much fees they have to ask from each car owner to be able to cover the eventually occurring costs at the few accidents that really happen.

So the core of an insurance is to “protect collectively“

Would you agree that we can compare the worldwide lockdowns with a kind of insurance?

Let me explain:

We all (collectively) stay at home in order to contain the virus. We know there is a probability we might get infected (we want protection), so we pay our fees by conforming to social distancing rules. We do not know if the virus will hit us or our parents, but we assume the probability is highly likely, so we do as we are told. We pay our insurance fee and stay at home. We do it freely or as we are told, when governments shut down whole industries and schools etc.

At the beginning of the lockdown most would agree: Staying home is really a small fee we have to pay, if we can help this way, that the virus does not spread too fast too far.

Now, a few weeks in the lockdowns, many people start realising:

Most seem to realise another thing slowly:

The virus indeed is really only a serious lethal risk for people over 65 years and people with previous health problems.

So many start thinking: why should we then continue to pay our “fee” if we are not subject to die?

Slowly the “collective” character of the lockdowns starts to erode.

Many, seeing their economy going down the toilet, are becoming more and more unhappy. They do not accept it anymore to pay their fee, after all they are not even the risk group.

Some even suggested already: Maybe we could quarantine only the elderly?

This brings me to another important topic we need to discuss to understand why COVID19 will open the box of Pandora.

The value of a life!

I asked on Twitter and other social channels what people think about the “value of a life”. I wanted to know a “real” figure, like:

Most who responded chickened out. They gave me answers like:

When I tried the respondents to give a real figure THEY think, not someone else thinks, is the value of a life, most if not all responded:

Life cannot be measured in value!

We could phrase it the other way around:

The amount of money to pay for a life does not exist!

Really? Stay with me, it is getting interesting now.

Let us do the synthesis of the two concepts:

what an insurance is about (protect collectively).

What strikes me most during this crisis, and most likely philosophers and psychologists or sociologists as well, is the fact that human mankind seems to think about others only if there is no stress!

Or the other way around: The less stress I have myself, the more I think about others too.

What do I mean by stress?

As long as everyone feared becoming infected and eventually die by COVID19 the pressure to pay our (insurance) fees, social distancing, shutting down the economy, was high enough that everyone agreed and paid the fee.

All around the world you read:

There was worldwide a very strong “together” (or collectively) we can fight it movement.

This notion of “collectively” we will fight COVID19 lasted until it dawned on some: everyone pays, but only a few, elderly, profit.

Even worse than in the car insurance example. With COVID19 we know exactly who the risk group is, at least we think we do.

And soon the tides started turning and many demanded from governments to ease the measures put in place, to ease those measures faster.

I repeat: the curves are nowhere near close to the levels when the lockdown measures had been put in place! In my opinion it is still for most countries too early to loosen up the measures.

Surely you wonder: and how does that relate to “insurance” and “the value of a life”?

This is the complicated part, I hope I get it right so you can understand.

As long as COIVD19 seemed to be a real threat to anyone, everyone was willing to pay the (insurance) fee. Everyone thought: the probability I am hit myself is high. So I pay the fee.

I pay the fee cause I value the life of myself and my loved ones incredibly high.

As soon as it got clear that we most likely would not die cause of COVID19, we lost our interest in paying the fee.

And this is the interesting and most important part here to understand.

Generally all agree: life cannot be measured in money, it is priceless. If there is threat to our own lives, we all are willing to pay the price, even if it is a very high price.

As soon as this threat seemed less probable to hit ourselves, our willingness to pay the price ceased.

This is very crucial to understand!

Simple explanation:

The notion that “not every life has the same value” could be explained like this:

If you have kids, then I am sure you would give your life in order to guarantee your kids are safe and healthy, right?

Would you also give your life to make sure your neighbour's kids are safe and healthy? No? His problem? Well, sure his problem, but this tells us: you value his kids less than your kids, hence not every life has the same value! Agree?

Logic tells us:

If I only am willing to pay the insurance fee, if I am subject to be hit by the event (dying through COVID19) but I am not willing to pay the fee if I am not prime target, then I value lives differently! I value the life of others less!

If that was not the case, ie. I value ALL lives the same, priceless, then I would be willing to continue to pay the (insurance) fee, cause I continue to help protecting them.

Did you follow this logical conclusion?

We do NOT value each life the same!

Or: there is different values we see in different lives.

Let us further assume that even knowing we are not prime target to die through COVID19 we are willing to pay a “certain”, though most likely slightly lower price, cause we are human beings and do tend to care for each other in general.

But we also have seen this “generosity” to care for each other in general, diminishes.

It seems there is a sweet-spot we are willing to pay to protect others. For our own family we would even pay with our own lives to ensure they continue to live healthy and safe. But for others, there is this sweet-spot. Kind of a maximum price we are willing to pay to make sure others live healthy and safe.

We are not willing anymore to let the whole economy go down, just to save a few elderly from dying.

So where did this notion “life is priceless” suddenly go?

Not there anymore! Where on our way here did we get so cruel? We all started with: life is priceless! And now we have to realise: we are not willing to pay any price anymore!

It looks as after all, it, life, is only priceless if it concerns ourselves. As soon as others are concerned there is this sweet-spot we are not willing to cross.

Let us advance a few months into the future now.

Post-Corona we will know quite well what the lockdown costs are/were. We know how many interest-free credits the government gave to companies, how many people lost their jobs, we will eventually know how long they lost their jobs, maybe 1-3 years. We will know how many workers had reduced salaries during the lockdown. All these costs, and any other cost occurred, we will eventually be able to figure out.

We will also be able to figure out: How many of the citizens were happy with the lockdown, and how many were not happy.

And this ladies and gentlemen is unique in the history of the whole earth!

We will be able to calculate all around the world what each individual is willing to pay to save another life!

We will have a commonly accepted value for an average life!

The box of Pandorra will be open.

You think I am mad thinking about this?

Let us imagine another scenario. Let us imagine COVID25 will kill only children under 20 years, the elderly will not be risk group, only children. I am 100% sure in such a scenario, which is way more threatening, people are willing to pay a “higher” price, agree to stronger and longer lockdown measures.

If you agree, then you also have to agree on this: If we are willing on different lockdown measures depending on the risk group, then we DO value life differently. We do value elderly less than young people.

Again: where did this “notion” of “the value of life is priceless” go?

Up until COVID19, if you were asking 100 people about the value of other people's lives, you would get 100 different, rather varying answers.

After COVID19 statistics (or math if you so want) will be able to tell us exactly where this sweet-spot is, the sweet-spot of a fee you are willing to pay to save other lives.

Why? Because whole countries, the whole world, suffered the same fate! COVID19 is a worldwide phenomenon.

All other “events” or phenomena are always applicable to only geographical regions or sub groups of our society:

In all these other “events” or phenomena we think: It is sad but why do I care, that is not my problem. Fix it yourself!

Forget it to try to chicken out! YOU think exactly the same way! We all do! We are just not courageous enough to admit, as it is against all ethical, moral etiquette. COVID19 will push it into our faces: This is how you value life!

After-math of COVID19 will allow us to “value” a life. And we will not be able to lie, chicken out, about this fact anymore.

We will know the government spent 1 trillion, 70% of people are unhappy after Corona, so 1 trillion divided by the amount of citizens is the sweet-spot for the value of “other people's life”!

Wanna peak inside the box?

Let us do this! For some it will be fun, some will get pissed and turn away, others will start to understand why this is the box of Pandorra.

Let us assume, as I really do not know where this figure will be, this calculated and generally accepted value of “the life of someone else” is around 200'000$. That value is really nothing.

What does that mean? Does that mean in the future we will not give health care to patients anymore if the treatment cost more than that?

Or will we apply a curve: a 40 year old will get a treatment of 300'000, but a 60 year old can only receive a treatment of 50'000?

Whatever the results will be: People will start asking in the future: Why do x million people in our country pay y amount of health care insurance fee, if only 0.05% of the people receive treatment?Treatment in excess of the commonly agreed “value of a life”!

That is unfair! Let us stop that! Let us cut, limit to, treatment cost at the (commonly agreed) value of a life.

Hmmm.. 200'000$ is not much. That is about 1 year of average cancer treatment cost. Most cancer patients need 2 years of treatment.

Knowing that, we could say: We will not do cancer treatment at all anymore, cause the probability you will not be healed after one year of treatment is so high, and we cannot continue the treatment beyond the value of your life, that we better not even start treating you!

Ui! That imagination is gross! Yes it is! Discussions like this will happen!

The positive side of that will be: health insurance cost will come down! For everyone!

For everyone! That's what folks wanted during Corona: stop everyone from paying for just a few!

Why not apply the same for health care?

Why not apply similar thinking to mortages?

Why not apply this to “owning” stuff? Why should someone “own” more than he himself is worth? Doesn't make sense, does it?

But the same math can also serve the greater good of a country.

Let us look at other costs: say military budget.

You would agree, that you certainly would not put more money into protection of a value than the value itself?

To protect 1 kg of gold (value 20'000$) you would not buy a vault at 40'000$, right? Maybe you would buy a vault at 5000$.

What is the main purpose of the military? Protect your country, protect the value within! Well guess what, after-math COVID19 we know the value of our country: citizens * (commonly agreed) value of a life.

After all: a country with no people living there is not worth protecting, so the value the military protects is basically the lives!

These are just ideas I have given. The whole notion that we will know “the value of a live” will open new opportunities: good and bad ones. Let us hope the good ones will beat the bad ones and thus let us turn the Box of Pandorra into “Paradise”.

“