Hi Everyone,
In Part 5, I discuss the ‘Individual Reset’ section of the book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’. To understand the content discussed in this post, I strongly recommend that you read Parts 1 to 4. Part 1 introduces the book. Part 2 and Part 3 discuss the ‘Macro Reset’, which is an important input used by the authors to make their predictions regarding the ‘Individual Reset’. Discussions made in Part 4 are connected to the ‘Individual Reset’, as businesses and individuals respond to changes as well as each other. As with the previous parts, I include my own commentary on the content. I discuss the aspects of the content I like and dislike as well as where I agree or disagree with the authors.
Individual Reset
The final section of the book discusses what it calls the ‘Individual Reset’. This section looks at how Covid-19 has affected individuals as well as how individuals will be effected in the future.
The authors believe that pandemics will bring out either the best or the worst in people. The authors made comparisons between disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, which are isolated to a particular time, and pandemics, which span over a longer period. For disasters that occur over a defined period, people are more likely to pull together, as the they know when it has ended and when to work together to rebuild. However, a pandemic can be long and drawn out and often has no foreseeable end. The rebuilding and healing process has no clear start date. The prolonged stress causes distrust and a primal fear of dying. Most pandemics are more likely to cause divide than cohesiveness. The authors use examples from the Spanish Flu to support their logic.
Pandemics can often lead to cognitive closure, which causes people to, narrow-mindedly, view the world in absolutes. This leads people to become more susceptible to conspiracy theories and the propagation of rumours, fake news, mistruths and other pernicious ideas. People often look for someone to blame. The disease becomes like a foreign enemy with malicious intent. The authors emphasise the importance of clear, reliable and consistent leadership. During a crisis, people rely more heavily on leaders.
Next, the authors turn their focus to moral and ethical choices. How do we decide what is in the interest of the common good? Is there a trade-off between increasing GDP and employment, and caring for our most fragile members of society? The authors criticise the USA for choosing policies, which favoured the economy over life. The authors agree that recessions can cost lives but also argue that does not need to be the case. They believe social safety nets should exist to help people during a crisis. The authors also discuss comparing number of lives lost to number of life years lost. For example, if an 80-year-old dies, they have only lost a few years (e.g. could have lost 5 years if he/she died at 85). If a 20-year-old dies, they most likely have lost many decades (e.g. could have lost 50 years if he/she died at 70). Covid-19 has killed many very old people who are likely to have very few years left. This is in contrast to many young people dying in a war.
The authors discuss market responses to the pandemic. If there were shortages in an essential item, the price of that item would be driven up (i.e. reduced supply and increased demand). The authors believe this to be unethical. They gave the examples of how businesses like Amazon did not raise their prices as well as other businesses that choose not to raise the prices of hand sanitizers but instead limited the number sold per customer.
The authors discuss mental illness and the impact the pandemic has had on mental illness. Mental illness was a serious problem prior to Covid-19. In 2017, 25% of Americans suffered from some form of mental illness. In the UK, more than half of days lost to sick leave were due to mental health problems. Covid-19 has caused mental health problems to increase further. Separation from family and friends plus the constant daily reminders about cases and lives lost to Covid-19 is breeding depression. These mental health problems are not expected to be resolved immediately after the pandemic. The pandemic has also contributed to a rise in domestic violence. This is likely due to anxiety and economic uncertainty.
The authors describe how people should and probably will reconnect with nature. The authors describe how medical professionals from several fields believe that spending more time with nature can help people feel better both physically and mentally. The authors pointed out that many countries with the strictest restrictions have still encouraged people to spend time outside exercising or visiting nature. Post-pandemic, the authors predict that people will become more appreciative of nature and use it to help heal themselves. The desire for a better relationship with nature is supported by recommendations made for the ‘Macro Reset’.
My views on the Individual Reset
Whether we blame Covid-19 or the restrictions placed to combat Covid-19, it is undeniable that people’s lives have changed. I would agree with the authors that the immediate changes have been negative. I agree that the nature of a pandemic is more likely to bring out the worst in people for the reasons provided in the book.
The authors focus on the distribution of fake news and conspiracy theories as a problem caused by people needing to blame someone or something. It is true that when bad things happen, people look to blame someone or something. In some cases, someone or something is to blame and in other cases, blame cannot be assigned. The problem with Covid-19 is that its origins have been unable to be confirmed. Theories range from it being created in a laboratory to being passed to humans from animal such as bats. An artificial creation is very different from a natural occurrence. If Covid-19 has been artificially created, someone is definitely to blame. If it has occurred naturally, blame is more difficult to assign and probably should not be assigned to anyone. If it was artificially created, what is the motive? Everything that occurs from that point forward becomes suspicious.
The extent of false information about Covid-19 has been extensive. Government and mainstream media have spread most of the false information and propaganda. If the information is not false, it tends to be biased to a particular point of view. What has made matters worse is that social media such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter have actively prevented alternative views and opinions regarding Covid-19. This approach to information will lead to paranoia, as it appears that Government and large companies are conspiring against the people.
Ethical choices is a difficult topic to discuss. Views on what is and is not ethical varies considerably between cultures and is constantly changing. I believe the best approach to ethics is to let the people decide what is and is not ethical. As stated before, the less intervention from Government the better.
The authors’ ideas regarding the market seem a little naive. It is true that in a free market, price and quantity are determined by demand and supply. However, the authors failed to mention that price and quantity do not necessarily respond immediately to changes in demand and supply. Temporary shocks are often ignored because responding to them could be more costly than to not. Increasing the price of a good that is experiencing a temporary spike in demand (e.g. hand sanitizer) is a bad idea. Repricing has a cost but more importantly raising the price of a good or a service in demand during a pandemic could irreparably damage the reputation of the business. When the pandemic is over, customers will remember the businesses that exploited them. If the changes in demand and supply are more permanent, price may not necessarily increase. Increased demand is likely to be met with new entrants to the market or existing entrants will respond by increasing supply. The downward pressure on price from changes in supply is likely to negate any long-term pressure on price to increase. It is even possible price could fall, as increased competition improves efficiency. However, if markets are not competitive (i.e. when a business or several businesses have considerable monopoly power), exploitive behaviour is considerably more likely to occur.
I agree that mental illness is a serious problem and that the restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic has worsened this problem. The restrictions imposed would have also contributed to the increase in domestic violence. I agree that people are social animals. They require a certain level of social contact to maintain good health. I would also state that any significant disruption or loss of freedom is bad for both physical and mental health. I would agree that spending more time with nature could alleviate physical and mental health problems but it will not serve as a sustainable substitute to a balanced life, which would include many of a person’s existing routines and habits. Mental illness was a serious problem prior to Covid-19. Therefore, it should be investigated thoroughly. It is often best to target the causes of problems and determine if these causes can be removed or mitigated.
Continued in Conclusion of series.
More posts
If you want to read any of my other posts, you can click on the links below. These links will lead you to posts containing my collection of works. These 'Collection of Works' posts have been updated to contain links to the Hive versions of my posts.
My New CBA Udemy Course
The course contains over 10 hours of video, over 60 downloadable resources, over 40 multiple-choice questions, 2 sample case studies, 1 practice CBA, life time access and a certificate on completion. The course is priced at the Tier 1 price of £20. I believe it is frequently available at half-price.
Future of Social Media
