Quality of life is the dilemma, should we avoid being with humans so we do not become sick, or is it worth getting sick to be with people, or is being with people the way to avoid getting sick, that is the question.
Whether it is more important for older humans to share the company of others or wither away in isolation. Is part of life enjoying or being in the company of others as a group. Can we sustain isolation as an existence, is it more important to be in the company of others and risk physical illness rather than physical well being all alone in a stagnant universe. Is cyber friendship a measure of quality of life or a figment of imagination.
Is being in a cave with a controlled environment a quality of life we can sustain, will the isolation create a medieval environment of slower growth, a retardation of civilization.
Is the decision by the 'healthy young' a valid proposal to lock up, isolate the fragile infirmed and older population, can their isolation be accurately considered prisons if those persons are denied the company of family or friends, is this prison a quality of life they would choose were they given the choice for themselves as opposed to have it mandated for them.
Can we say it is just, to isolate the immune compromised or elderly because we want them to live longer, less fulfilling lives. Are the fragile the meek who will inherit the earth. But alas, that is not so, for the immune compromised are statistically the majority of whom have been consumed by this virus, or is their isolation a purpose for population reduction. Can we justify locking up the weak and elderly because we want to save them for better days. Do they have the right to suffer with the rest of us. Why would grandparents, and parents want not to be with their offspring all the time.
Is the internet a quality of life we ought adapt to on a permanent basis. Have we the right to risk ourselves and others for being social animals.
As a species who has chosen globalization for a better quality of life, meeting and greeting others as a social betterment now can be choosing isolation as a preferred lifestyle.
Have we become so afraid of the next chapters of our lives to not venture into the unknown nor risk everything for experience, is fear of death or fear of frailty a route to happiness, or is happiness no longer a right to pursue. Are we willing to be healthy unhappy characters in this play of life.
It has been said that the planet is overpopulated and as such cannot sustain the species, is it just others choosing whom to risk, governments have chosen who gets to live and who does not get to live. Governments have allotted personal protective equipment, drugs, and care as well as choosing who can earn a living and who can not. Is this a new selective breeding regime.
There are very few nursing homes whose residents and staff have not been decimated by the decree in New York State/City to not transport ill to hospitals for medical treatment. The National Government is also choosing not to support those states which have financial difficulties known as deficits because in the past they have not budgeted prudently, as well as choosing which industries to 'cripple'. Eateries are shutdown in favor of standardized foods for the masses. It seems as though all choice is being made for the people, all the thinking is done for the masses, all the freedoms are being withheld 'for the good of all'.
Poverty will breed ignorance, hunger will breed want, ignorance will breed fear, and society slides back into the darker ages in favor of saving a few, and the few who are left will fight for the miniscule bits of civilization still present in a repressive global dilemma.
Again, circumstance begs the question, is quality of life less important than long life, can isolation breed a civilized species; are forced circumstances sustainable to maintain a civilized species, what right does an individual have when faced with infection, we lock up drunk drivers yet we classify alcoholism as a disease, we lock up people who try to terminate their own lives, but we as a species allow governments to choose who gets to survive or we allow governments to choose who gets to die, governments get to choose families who survive and what their survival will look like, there is now unnatural selection to sustain the species.
So again the question begs, is quality of life or longevity of life the preferred route, is a good life attainable now - for the majority rather than the minority, are a select few the Lords of the Manor and the rest the peasants or serfs who do their bidding for scraps.
Are the protestors wrong, those who choose to venture into the sunshine to breathe the air, experience the earth and enjoy the sky. Is fresh air only for a select group of the species and denied as a right for others.
Albeit, the planet is finite, and 'man' is depleting all its resources, thus, a lesser human population is warranted, the question beckons, though someone inevitably will choose how to reduce the population, does the population have the right, 'if that's all there is - to keep dancing, and break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all there is'.
