Hello and welcome back to Pie ponders rambles… and all that jazz. Now, as some of the more perceptive of you may or may not have noticed, I usually do not make multiple posts on the same topic in a short time, but I decided to keep things a bit topical. Due to this factor, they are more rambles than ponders, because I take less than the usual time to polish the stuff. But when did that ever stop me?

There are many questions about the ChiCom Cold. How dangerous is it, how contagious is it, dangerous to who, if we are all going to die does that increase my chances of getting laid and so on and so forth. Most non libertarian talk is around the things collectivists like. Herd immunity, social responsibility, government response and so forth. Fewer are talking about the personal responsibility side of things. One way to talk about it is along the lines each person, based on risk profile and personal attitude towards risk should decide to isolate or not how much. The critics of this say one can only isolate so much, society must take care to isolate in general. This is all debatable. I am not going to debate it right now.

Another thing leftists say is generic nonsense that makes them feel smart and ethical like a society should be judged on how it protects the weakest and most vulnerable. This is again debatable, because everyone is worse off in the long term if you protect the vulnerable by hamstringing the non-vulnerable. And, even if you do subscribe to the former saying – I do not myself and consider it, like most left saying e.g people before profit, meaningless and devoid of substance – the question of how and at what cost still stands. Because, whatever your friendly neighborhood people before profit leftist will tell you, resources are limited and in the end everything has a cost which will not go away via magical thinking.

Even the most jaded of hardhearted bastard libertarian will not deny that, yes, the sick and old require some care, because, as Freddy Bastiat noticed, just because we don’t want government to do something does not mean we don’t want it done at all. Now, most of what you read up to this point is introductory and not really the point of the post. I will now try to get to the damn point a bit faster. While we – what is this we shit statist, amIright – can agree to protect the weak to some extent, I would put the question: do people have the responsibility to try their best not to be weak in the first place? I would say the answer would be yes, both in a libertarian and non-libertarian view, as this goes beyond politics and should be a general principle to follow in life.

Now I will take a moment here to get all the to be sure-ing and disclaimers out of the way: I am not at all saying that anyone sick or vulnerable is at fault. Many of them are not. But… a good number of them are. A lot of health issues in modern society are preventable. They are lifestyle issues. And this is where some responsibility should come in. The more society advances, the more the number of weak, sickly people will increase. For one, the life expectancy seems to increase more than the healthy life expectancy. This, while not 100%, can definitely be influenced by lifestyle factors. And while one can blame poverty or other socioeconomic factors, there is always an element each of us can influence, and many choose not to.

Contagious disease in an interconnected world with centers of dense population is something that is a given. It will not be eliminated. One of the factors that makes these worse is the health status, immune status and general condition of the populace. Among the things that influence this is general fitness, and this is an area where many people are significantly lacking, and it has to do with in part personal behavior.. And no, not only the poor. There are plenty people with good incomes who eat a crap diet because it tastes good, do not do any form of exercise because it is hard, they are unfit, overfat and more vulnerable to disease. And this only gets worse with age. Now, I think I used flexible enough language to defend myself of all sorts of accusation. Not all people etc.

I don’t want to sound too harsh (I kinda do though), but it is a general human reaction to seeing someone sick or weak and feel sorry for the poor fella. But few think wait a minute, maybe a lifetime of choices lead that person to that situation. While there are people who end up there through the luck of the draw and no real fault of their own, having people there due to lifestyle does nothing but greatly increase the number of people with problems and invariable increase the risk for the former. And this is a major risk factor. Because resources to deal with this will always be limited, and the fewer people who need them the better.

This is off course mostly admitted by governments trying to change habits due to pressure on public health systems and the like. In the end there are two ways to go: authoritarian or libertarian. Either people take responsibility or are forced. The world is moving to force. This, off course, rarely ends well. Obesity, whatever the fat acceptance movement may tell you, is an ever growing thread to health. Lack of exercise as well. Lack of strength, insufficient muscle mass, low cardiovascular fitness. All of it. Disclaimer: present company included, if it applies. Excessive fat, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and all that cause a lot of issues. As people age, sarcopenia kicks in. It is an ever growing problem in the world.

This is not a purely theoretical musing. Even if you lean more collectivist than individualist, it is a fact that a society in which a large number of people are prone to illness is not a strong society. Although it may be that some prefer a weak society, as it is easier to control. But I assume there is a limit, a tipping point, a maximum carry capacity if you will. In the end, because some will inevitably not be able to prevent illness, those who can should. And I do not think they can be made by government law.

Which brings me back to covid, for which vulnerability is influenced by many of these factors – obesity is one, and general immune system problems which can be cause by several lifestyle factors, diet exercise etc. Many in these trying times tell low risk people you may not care but think of the high risk people. And now we finally get to the actual point of the post: is it not the case that some of these high risk people are high risk due to a lifetime of not taking care of their body? And why should they expect the world to suffer months long lockdowns to protect them? And what will happen with the next virus, when even more will be at risk? A robust populace cannot be comprised of individually weak people. To what point can we say get your ass out of that comfortable armchair in front of the TeVe and get it glibfiting, eat a bit less calorie dense low satiety junk once in a while, otherwise when a virus come don’t start bitching about your risk profile. Would the covid be less dangerous with a population with obesity rates closer to 5% than 50% and people with a general high fitness level? Probably. And the next illness that comes as well. Without even mentioning that lack of fitness causes many problems when there is no pandemic.

Now, I know, I am an evil man who judges people harshly. People can’t help themselves, they are stressed have jobs children, exercise is unpleasant they are tired and junk food is rewarding. Be that as it may. Oh Pie, like you are perfect or something! Far from it, have too much body fat and consume too much alcohol. But I do my best to keep things under control, I am fitter than average and if I get liver disease as I age, I cannot complain about bad luck. In the end, if most people gave an honest effort, results varying, it would be ok, but in my experience some simply don’t. The trajectory is not a good one. And we will be, as a group (yes collective), worse and worse off, until the shit completely hits the fan, if it has not already. Or maybe I am full of shit. We will see. Or not, depending on the breaks.