‘INTIMACY: Part 3’
CAERS SUBSTACK ARTICLE #38
The desire for intimacy explains in part why we are so tribal. We feel accepted and safe within the tribe; we sense that we are understood and valued. But there is a corollary: we are wary of other tribes where we do not feel so safe. We might eventually be convinced otherwise, but our default position is one of fear and suspicion.
So, it should come as no surprise that not so very long ago, during my lifetime, someone openly sharing their intimate homosexual feelings was demonized. Our tribe often felt threatened by something that was foreign and not well understood, even if only at a subconscious level. That frequently resulted in homosexuals not being allowed to do the things the rest of us could do, including finding employment. Worse still, there was no evidence that simply being homosexual would automatically do harm to anyone else, yet some homosexuals were even seriously assaulted. Fortunately, such intolerant thinking and malicious behaviour are much less common today.
Sadly, this is not an isolated phenomenon. We have reacted, and continue to react, similarly with people whose skin colour is not the same as ours, or those whose religious beliefs don’t completely align with our own. Whenever someone is different, or goes against the status quo, our reflex response is fear, and we often respond with intolerance. This tends to be magnified if we see any evidence at all that they pose a threat to our safety or our tribe’s way of life. The vaguest possibility of harm to us is enough to justify all manner of cruel treatment.
Yet again we have seen this manifest during the pandemic. For the first year none of us were vaccinated so we hunkered down together as a unified tribe. Those who braved the virus to provide health care or deliver the essentials like food and fuel were hailed as heroes. But once the vaccine was made available that all changed: those who questioned the narrative, or worse still, were reluctant to accept injection of an experimental vaccine utilizing novel gene technology, scared us and were vilified at every opportunity. The heroes became the villains almost overnight; they were no longer part of ‘us’. We were happy to have them around taking care of us until we were told that they had become a threat now that a vaccine was available. This was particularly unfair given that a very significant percentage of health care workers, for example, had likely acquired natural immunity to COVID from their exposure to it while taking care of us. But we did not even have the decency to offer them exemption from vaccination by allowing them to test for antibodies before we discriminated against them. Our raw fear had us believe, before there was any proof, that the vaccine was 100% safe and effective, and that vaccination was the only way to be safe. That in turn justified the right to deprive the supposedly dangerous unvaccinated of freedom of movement and even employment with little if any proof that they posed a real harm to anyone else when they were well (and even though the rest of ‘us’ were vaccinated). The mere possibility of asymptomatic transmission, despite what was supposed to be an effective vaccine, was enough for us to turn on them for our own protection. Perhaps not the most flattering demonstration of tribalism.
If we are going to demand that individuals share intimate details of their medical health, such as their vaccination status, and forego the usual privacy and confidentiality in the name of transparency and public safety, then we must be very sure that the risk to public safety is sufficiently high to justify such an encroachment. This is particularly important given our history of horrendous maltreatment of those who are different or with whom we disagree. It is little wonder that people are loathe to reveal intimate details of their medical health given that tragic reality.
It should not shock us that a vaccine developed so quickly and that uses a brand-new technology has, with time, proven not to be very effective at all in preventing or transmitting disease. Afterall, no vaccine has ever been developed against any coronaviruses, including SARS CoV-1. It is even doubtful now that the vaccine even prevents serious disease from COVID, including reducing the risk of death.
Equally doubtful is whether asymptomatic spread is a significant public health concern, vaccinated or otherwise. Limiting movement for those who are actively sick and shedding significant amounts of virus, regardless of vaccination status, makes perfect sense. So does protecting the vulnerable. But employing measures that could harm innocent people in so many ways may not be wise, especially with such minimal scientific and moral justifications.
Will we look back years from now and see how we continue to allow our unprocessed fear provoke us into behaviour that is ethically and scientifically dubious? If so, why wait until then to stop and reflect? Do we have sufficient courage to be that intimate with ourselves now, before more harm is done?
J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSC (bioethics)
CAERS Health Intake Facilitator
So well said. Thank you for acknowledging how hurtful it is to live under the threat of losing everything for over 2 years now.
No organization or politician can be bragging about their "DEI" policies if they endorsed, participated or went along with this medical segregation, especially if they still have bylaws in place that would allow for an "encore" of the current public health disaster.
Critical thinkers in journalism, in science, and in every walk of life are an uncomfortable yet absolutely necessary part of a healthy society.