Â鶹Éç

Available for over a year

Good morning. Over the weekend, as our focus has been on other things – not least our leaving the European Union - coronavirus has been quietly spreading at a frightening pace. There are now more than 14,000 confirmed cases in eighteen countries, and 46 million people are subject to restrictions to try to contain the disease. ‘Take back control’ has been one of the soundbites of the Brexit campaign, but this virus is a terrifying reminder of the things we cannot control. New diseases in a new host are often most dangerous. Incubation periods are not understood, new vaccines need developing and new problems are posed. Never before has anyone tried to contain a new virus in a city, like Wuhan, of 11 million people. Quarantine is an ancient strategy. The term originated with bubonic plague and dates back to 1377, when the seaport of Ragusa officially issued a 40 day isolation period. But isolating those with diseases goes back much further than that. The Bible, for example, gives ample illustration in its instructions for dealing with contagious skin conditions. Whilst the choice to isolate the few is designed to protect the lives of the many, the horror of being trapped inside a cordon, cut off from loved ones or fearing for loved ones, can hardly be imagined. Often it has been compounded with religious ideas of uncleanness that project the cause of the disease onto those already suffering. Ideas that Jesus challenged as he invited his followers to think again about what it means to ‘choose life’. Whilst containment may still be an important disease control strategy, according to Prof Tim Benton of Chatham House, we need to see coronavirus as a part of a pattern of diseases that are bridging the animal human gap. Whilst this has always happened, urbanisation and the intensive human interventions that are disrupting ecosystems, are making us all more vulnerable. Of course, some will always be more vulnerable than others. Poorer city-dwellers are more likely to be cleaners and sanitation workers, elevating their chances of encountering disease. They may also have weaker immune systems because of poor nutrition or lack of access to healthcare. In some cultures, people also use urban wildlife for food. Caring for the poorest, ensuring that people at the margins have access to good sanitation, food and healthcare – these are values often repeated (not least on TFTD) as part of a vision for ‘choosing life’ – and as often dismissed as soft, or compromised in the name of profit, or pushed to the bottom of the agenda because ‘charity begins at home’, and yet it is literally true that in the case of a virus like this, the world’s population is only as strong as its weakest link. It’s in all our interests, whether decisions that govern our lives are made in Brussels or in London, urgently to co-operate across the globe in making radical changes to the living and working conditions of the poorest and to the ways in which we interact with the environment. Not because it’s nice to be nice. But because, as research helps us understand better how the world is interconnected, so we understand better what it means to inhabit the ancient religious invitation to ‘choose life.’