Opinion: Let’s talk about ‘we’ not just ‘me’

August is when summer begins to fade. I am concerned about the autumn. The government has determined that children must go back to school.

While it’s clear that the young are less susceptible to being harmed by the virus, they can still transmit it to others.

Are we sure that if the virus circulates among children that we won’t experience a significant uptick in deaths among their parents and grandparents, or indeed the shopkeeper or postman that may come into contact with them?

I don’t believe the government is sure: it appears to be fighting off waves of headlines it dislikes, trying to stay on top of events, and in the process, drowning.

I also don’t believe the government is ideologically equipped to deal with the crisis. Since 1979, the point of Conservatism is to embrace the “me” rather than the “we”. Tax policies, abandoning communities to the vagaries of the free market, and cuts to benefits of all kinds have a single focus: to grant energy and resources to those most inclined to adhere to the doctrine of “me” rather than think about the “we”.

Disaster does have a way of clarifying our interconnectedness. When the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl exploded, it became clear it was not solely a problem for the Russians. Rather, radioactivity spread across all of Europe. We have only become more networked since then, and a disease which begins in the middle of China can rapidly become a global pandemic.

There is not just “me” in this situation: there is “we”.

There have been politicians who have been at pains to explain this. I think of Governor Cuomo in New York: he once was being heckled by a reporter from a far-right outfit, who complained about the lockdown’s effect on the economy. He informed her that she needed to get her head around the “we” concept and think about it being her family perhaps impacted by any premature opening. If children go back to school and social distancing and other safety measures aren’t in place, what happens to “we”? It may be good for some people that they can go back to work, but at what cost?

We already can see tentative signs that not thinking about the “we” is having a negative effect.

Many if not all the spikes in coronavirus cases throughout Europe, the United States, and Asia, have a link to a lack of “we” behaviours. These include a refusal to wear a mask and not respecting social distancing rules. I don’t necessarily believe the “me” impulse is deliberately harmful; it merely has that effect in this case. Someone may have the coronavirus and not be symptomatic. They may dislike the discipline of having to wear a mask in a store. They won’t be harmed if they don’t wear one: but others might. If this behaviour is replicated enough times, others will.

The government tries three-word slogans to encourage others to adhere to the correct behaviours. I believe that the public is sick of being spoon fed cheap doggerel. We need to be clear: in a disaster, whether it’s a pandemic, a war, an explosion, or a terrorist attack, there is no “me” any longer. We are interconnected. We are a community. One part of the community forgetting this can harm the remainder. So: put on the mask, adhere to social distancing, be mindful that the virus is still out there and killing people. I pray it doesn’t touch anyone else: it likely will.

But if we are to limit the numbers of those it can harm, it’s time to be ever mindful of the “we” involved.