Finding right balance for life and livelihood

THE EDITOR: In trying to deal with the covid19 pandemic, the world over is trying to find a delicate balance between measures to sustain “life” and, on the other side, to sustain “livelihood.”

For life, literally to breathe, because there is so much we do not know about this virus, we must continue to practise what we do know to try and mitigate its effects, like strict hygiene, especially of the hands and face, social distancing, using protective gear and the like.

Perhaps with the new drug remdesivir we are making the first step to proactively check this virus, and there is encouraging news about other drugs, but until then, we must continue to be vigilant, this vigilance perhaps our new way of life, if we want to live. This is our individual responsibility and no one must have to tell us that we must do so.

But for our livelihood, literally to exist and survive as civilised human beings, we must begin to balance the physical safety of our lives with being able to engage in interactive behaviours at all levels of the society to ensure that the basic needs for such survival are intact.

Like providing services that others may need as in the public service, or as with goods and services that businesses big and small provide, or as with care in the health service. And importantly, not only as with the social services which the appropriate institutions provide but also the basics of human interaction, which is the cornerstone of the varied human psychologies of everyday living.

But livelihood in this total sense can only be a distant aspiration under the constraints of this pandemic, which means we can only approach that ideal incrementally, in minute, small doses at first, providing these services in the amounts that are allowable considering the necessity for life. We can then slowly expand those services, causing the original stringency to become less and less a necessity.

This is the balance that governments all over the world must strive for, for even as physical life can never be compromised, the fundamental of human interaction which underpins it must also be given its priority of place.

It is not an initiative which is easy to implement for the vagaries of the virus disallow treating it in a straight line and often there is need to fall back on measures which seemed discardable at the time.

In many countries like the US, especially in the state of Michigan, there is serious conflict over safety measures being put in place and the perception of the citizens that their rights are being infringed upon, and so too in other countries.

But good leaders must try to avoid engaging in a mode of stringency which seemingly ensures life but slowly kills the goose that lays the golden egg of sustained livelihood. A measure of this leadership is in finding the right balance.

DR ERROL N BENJAMIN

via e-mail