CV19 Living with Risk
“everything that kills me makes me feel alive” (with thanks to OneRepublic).
Were the motorbike to be invented today, would we be allowed to ride it on the open road? I say no.
The motorbike is unlike any other form of transport available today; I am excluding horse riding as a form of transport. Although a motorbike is typically cheaper to own and run than a car it offers few practical benefits over a car. A motorbike requires greater skill to pilot than a car. The potential for error for motorbike riders is greater than any other form of transport, thus requiring greater commitment.
Why then is the motorbike ridden? Purely for the joy it brings.
No other form of transport is as enjoyable. A motorbike is at once both utilitarian by providing transport, and recreational by providing the joy of movement, skill mastery, and yes, exhilaration.
Motorbike riding is risky, there is a chance of injury; will it and other activities that carry a risk of injury be allowed to continue in a post Covid-19 world?
As with my other articles on the impact of Covid-19 I will step beyond the refrain of ‘it’s all gonna be different’ and attempt to describe a likely scenario within each of the many dimensions of our lives. A common theme across these articles is that the forces that were shaping society BC (Before Covid) will in many circumstances be predominate in determining what society will be like AP (After Pandemic). I concede that this will not be true in all cases; in some situations the pandemic may accelerate a trend but in others it will trigger a shift into a different paradigm.
The trend in our society has been to reduce the dangerous activities that we are allowed to participate in, and immediately ban any new activities that are created, for example base jumping. Governments are unable to detect a difference between a skilled practioner of a dangerous sport getting it wrong, and a boozed up idiot up jumping off a cliff into knee deep water.
Coroner’s reports into fatal accidents invariably recommend restrictions, controls tightened, additional licencing and activities banned. Each of these reports is met with acceptance by politicians; I cannot remember a single time there has been push back against a coroner where they have recommended the shutting down of an activity. There is no one now in public life with the courage or the personal flair to stand against the orthodoxy.
Before Corona we had arrived at a point where there was an unwillingness to allow personal risk; each existing activity surviving on a knife edge, fearing the next accident would lead to a complete shutdown of the activity.
This has occurred in parallel with, but may not have been directly caused by, a growing expectation that governments should prevent bad things from happening to us: there are more signs warning of dangers that in many cases we should be able to easily see for ourselves, there must be fences where there were none before, travellers in trouble expect the government to rescue them and return them home. It is not uncommon to see the heads of Police departments state that ‘they are responsible for our safety’.
Governments had moved beyond protecting us from others, to protecting us from ourselves.
For those who engage in activities that carry an element of risk there is a sense that every time the activity is questioned the discussion focuses on a single dimension; injuries, and injuries = cost. A frustration felt by participants of adventure sports is that public debate lacks a framework for making decisions that balances all of the dimensions of an issue with the result being the momentum towards greater regulation. But perhaps a framework does exist and that framework balances the trade-offs differently than many would like.
The trend line, if allowed to continue, would see us arrive at a point where the very act of living would require justification.
On the 8th of April 2020 in response to a question on when the lockdown restrictions are likely to be lifted, the Premier of NSW was reported in the SMH as saying this:
"Every time you relax a restriction, more people will get sick. More people will die. And it's a horrible situation to be in, but they're the choices and we need to be up-front about that."
Yes, and that is true not just of restrictions relating to managing a pandemic, but to other aspects of our lives. I am not challenging the near complete lockdown to achieve a reduction in the infection rate – this is a health crisis requiring such actions. It is possible to be both supportive of a lockdown during a pandemic, and concerned that elements of it will continue afterwards
The element that will continue afterwards will be the stance in relation to living with risk – that life is precious and must be protected, rather than life is precious and must be enjoyed. Governments have moved so swiftly and completely to manage the risk associated with CV19 – effectively locking a majority of citizens in their homes and consequently shutting down economic activity – that it will take a heroic government to continue to allow activities that involve personal risk.
On the scale that will be used for decision making in our society AP there will continue to be a heavier weight sitting on the side of caution, of prevention of bad outcomes, and there will be a lighter weight sitting on the side of individual freedom and responsibility, of acceptance that the thrill of exhilaration comes with risk of injury.
There is an argument that I am misinterpreting the driver behind the lockdowns: that they are not about protecting me, but about preventing me from harming others. The purpose of the lockdown is to reduce the number of interactions I have with other people, reducing the potential for me to pass on the virus if I’m infected, and not yet showing symptoms. Of course it is both, to protect me, and to protect others from me.
Rules that prevent me from harming others are not only acceptable, but essential.
Re-enforcement of a mindset that was growing Before Corona, that governments are responsible for our safety, will come not just from governments but the broader community. The state of the health system to absorb higher casualties will be very much in mind before each step is taken in easing the lockdown restrictions. Imagine then the public outcry when a ‘thrill seeker’ requires care, potentially at the expense of a Covid-19 sufferer; in the invective laden world of social media the treatment of one is questionable, the other justifiable. Perversely, the increased government control over our lives is sometimes requested, rather than imposed.
If you don’t believe that a motorbike invented today would be allowed, consider the case of the Segway, or the pushbikes with small motors – that look remarkably similar to the early motorbikes. All have been banned from use in public spaces.
Travelling from A to B by motorbike is unjustifiable on utilitarian grounds – but it is a choice that should continue to be allowed – just for the sheer joy. I expect that Covid-19 will result in a continuing diminution of the activities available to us, when the only justification for the activity is that it brings us joy.
