My Support Forums - View Single Post

SprinkL3 · Jan 10, 2022 at 01:28 AM

Here's another argument at play that I read in this article: Pandemic fatigue? How adherence to covid-19 regulations has been misrepresented and why it matters | The BMJ

Here's the main rebuttal of the argument:

Quote:

The problem, then, is that in psychologising and individualising the matter of adherence, one disregards the structural factors that underlie the spread of infection and the differential rates in different groups. One also avoids acknowledging the failures of government to provide the support necessary to follow the rules (most obviously in the case of self-isolation). Additionally, one overlooks the fact that some of the rules and the messaging around them may be the problem (such as encouragement to go out to the pub—doing one’s “patriotic best” according to the prime minister—and to return to work after the first lockdown). It is particularly misleading and unfair to ask people to do things and then blame them for doing so.18

The way in which matters of adherence have been portrayed and understood during this pandemic have been spectacularly wrong. If anything, the headline stories should not be of fatigue and covidiots and house parties. They should highlight the remarkable and enduring resilience of the great majority of the population—including those who have been most subject to blame, such as students and young people—even in the absence of adequate support and guidance from government. Indeed, in many ways the narratives of blame serve to project the real frailties of government policy on to the imagined frailties of public psychology.