It’s still too soon to say when this coronavirus nightmare will be over, what kind of changes the world would leave behind if it lasts too long. But it is already abundantly clear that governments around the world will have to redefine their priorities. How could it be, really, that the world suddenly faces an existential threat in the form of a virus that nobody can understand despite all the technological advances in the field of medicine? And, even in the 21st century, we live in a world where there aren’t enough ventilators, hospital beds, or even mortuaries to face a real, full blown crisis; even though the coronavirus threat, for all its damage, is still not quite as full blown as it can get. If only such things could be handled with bombs, bullets and super-rich shareholder bailouts, things wouldn’t be nearly as dark.
Coming out of the virus, there is a clear need to reorient popular funding towards protecting and saving the world and its inhabitants. All the expensive weaponry produced by some of the world’s wealthiest, and politically most connected, firms will amount to nothing if much of the planet’s population is suddenly wiped out by a freak pandemic. And this is another thing that the super-rich just wouldn’t have thought of in ordinary times – the coronavirus is least impressed by one’s bank balance, financial worth or pedigree. And not all the people lying on hospital beds, not sure whether they’ll live or die, are from the lowest sections of society.
Saqib Ishaq
AJK
