When science becomes a paradox

Screenshot 2020 05 08 at 13.48.10

So much is being said in the news and everywhere else about the biological, social and economic harm that coronavirus has inflicted upon human society, but one aspect seems to be constantly ignored: The psychological effects.

Yes, there are discussions around the implications that lockdowns may have had (or already have had) on those suffering from mental health issues, but that is just one side of the whole story and limited to a certain section of the society. What needs to be analysed is the implication of the whole situation on the collective psyche of the whole human population living in any part of the world.

Few things in history have affected the human population at such a global scale. When lockdowns were being imposed, it was hard to persuade people to stay at home. Six weeks down the line and the message has got so deep rooted in everyone’s mind that governments – guided by science as they say – are having to think of ways of persuading people to now safely go back to work. Strong “scientific” evidence suggests that it is now safe to go out cuatiously, but then, there is equally strong “scientific” evidence that it is not.

There is scientific research proving that the elderly, with no underlying health conditions, can sensibly decide whether it is okay for them to be out and about, but then there is research (scientific again) that says that they remain vulnerable, regardless of health conditions. Scientific data is there to convince parents that it is absolutely safe to send children back to school, but there is an equal amount of data (scientific again) that sending them to school could push the infamous R rate shoot exponentially.

1 1
Many countries are soon to bring lockdown to an end, leaving many questioning the move as cases continue to appear

Masks, some scientists say, help prevent the wearer from passing the virus on to others, while others (of similar or the same credentials) are of the opinion that they help in catching it as well while there is a group (of equal calibre in qualification) insisting that they are of no use at all. When the governments allowed two individuals from different households to meet outside, the safe distance was said to be two metres – according to governments like the British – for them to stay apart.

Now that they want the public to get back to work, the safe distance is now down to one metre and there is the moderate group of great minds claiming that normal personal space should suffice for safety. With such conflicting statements, the global human population feels stranded in the middle of nowhere. They don’t want to stay home, but they are too afraid of going out; they have bought various types of masks, but are still not confident as to which type works better (or if any of them even work at all).

Home schooling is no longer working, but sending children to school leaves them feeling potentially exposed to the deadly coronavirus. No one can say for certain if this paranoia was an objective of governments all along or if it just happens to emerge as a byproduct. Whatever the case, it is very much there and either way, it always has been a major strategy of political leaders to control human population with instilling fear deep into their minds.

This tool has always worked. It worked for Hitler, it worked for Mossulini and we have now seen it work for leaders of our times.

Science was never so paradoxical. Or maybe it was and we never saw it that way. The world has no one to turn to.

Fortunate are those who know where to head, whom to seek help from and whom to ask deliverance from this misery.

No posts to display


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here