Bad Luck Boris

In April of this year, I read one of the many articles orbiting the stratosphere of Western Media. It was all about  Boris Johnson and his terrible run of ‘bad luck’ since becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

The piece began by promptly declaring how Johnson had been on the fast track to becoming one of the most successful leaders in Commonwealth history. After securing an unassailable majority victory in the parliamentary election – thus winning the stance on Brexit – he oversaw the restoration of power-sharing in Northern Ireland after a hiatus spanning three years. His popularity with the people was on an unprecedented upward trend. His personal life became no less envious after getting engaged to his girlfriend at the time, Carrie Symonds. The pair have since been blessed with a son – Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas Johnson.

Fast forward a couple of months, and it’s all going to pot.

First, there were the floods which submerged large portions of Britain. People who had previously supported Johnson in his endeavours now engaged in condemning his ‘shambolic’ attempt to resolve the mess. Then followed the embarrassing resignations of both his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid Javid, and Sir Philip Rutnam, the senior civil servant who left after butting heads with Priti Patel.

And so arrived COVID-19.

After just 100 days, Coronavirus had already managed to threaten the livelihoods of thousands of British citizens at home and abroad and left the UK facing the highest death toll in Europe. Johnson himself was out of action for a month as his country continued to be battered by ‘the worst crisis since WWII’. Even after his return to Downing Street, the Government has continued to enforce weak legislature and a string of empty promises – many of which have had to be revoked due to fluctuating graphs and inconsistent models reflecting the number of active cases. Percentages have been consulted – not people.

One would expect that the intention of restoring faith and favour toward the figures we elected to lead our nation should be of the utmost priority. But instead of addressing the myriad of issues vis-a-vis lack of planning and emergency protocol, Westminster had but one thing to say when confronted with the Prime Minister’s relative incompetency.

“Nobody deserves such bad luck .”

-Michael Heseltine, British politician

Of course, I feel that current affairs have had a massive influence on Boris and his decision making. Having suffered at the hand of the pandemic himself, perhaps he has gained a little insight into the world’s plight. My heart goes out to him, and anyone else who has had to endure this disease. My family and I tested positive for COVID during the early stages of lockdown – a thoroughly unpleasant experience that I wouldn’t wish upon anyone.

But, I mean, really? We’re blaming ‘luck?’

Has this – or the lack thereof – really been a major theme behind the Prime Minister’s dwindling prosperity. The article mentioned above presents conflicting opinions concerning the validity of the concept. Therefore, in order to formulate a personal opinion, you should be prepared to critically assess both sides of this ‘luck’ argument.

The way I see it, we didn’t get hit with a one-in-billions risk. The reality comprised of many smaller risks building upon each other. A virus was transferred from animal to human. This is not a new concept. Those humans then interacted with other people, igniting the firecrackers of mass contagion.

Widespread bad news tends to be largely suppressed for as long as possible. Most governments opted to believe it would be contained – a classic case of denial. Incidentally, they didn’t respond fast enough. Lack of communication paired with crippling indifference. Sound familiar?

Utter pandemonium ensued.

It’s no secret that the sheer gravity of the situation caught our leaders wildly off-guard. The only response deemed ‘proper’ enough under the circumstances was to issue a total lockdown. Desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures. So businesses are shuttered, the economy grinds to a sickening halt, and anyone over the age of 65 has been told to fear for their lives. If we’d acted sooner – if we’d just taken some well-intentioned advice from the scientists and public health experts – the consequences, although still notable, would be much less severe. But when a problem starts off – literally – on the other side of the world, it evidently takes some time to register that it may one day contaminate home soil. Unfortunately, a little extra thinking time has since cost the planet far too many lives.

The nature of this pandemic was – and continues to be – barely understood. But at least now, instead of just skulking through the avenues of ‘what-if? we’re actually doing something to get out of this rut.

But is it the right thing? As a nation, are we really learning from the error of our ways, or simply shaking our fists at fate for dealing us the shoddiest of hands?

Alas, things are no better across the pond. President Trump has consistently used Twitter to trumpet his views on what he refers to as the ‘China Virus’. He’s since cut U.S funding toward the WHO (World Health Organisation) and bizarrely recommended the public inject and/or ingest disinfectant as a means of killing SARS-COV-2. Yet another example of delusional wreaking havoc from its societal highchair. Poison, at the heart of the free world.

The UK Prime Minister contracting this disease should not come as a surprise either, after assessing the amount of contact he had with others prior to infection. As for his trip to intensive care, this stems from a combination of factors ranging from the viral load he received to the pre-existing prowess of his immune system. Even the fact he continued to over-exert himself after becoming infected contributes heavily toward how acute his symptoms were.

As mentioned before, this international crisis is still a grey area, therefore we must understand more about COVID-19 before deciding whether this was an anomalous blip or an inevitable outcome, provoked by the accumulation of poor choices over time. Such affairs are best assessed in retrospect. It’s called history.

There are many contesting opinions when it comes to luck. I personally perceive the entire notion as a psychological ‘comfort blanket’, sought after by those who dare not accept that higher powers won’t intervene for the sake of raffle tickets.

That is not to say that I don’t enjoy entertaining the fallacy every now and again. It feels undeniably good to ‘be lucky’. All the same, we are quick to proclaim unforeseen, calamitous events a result of ‘bad luck’ whenever it suits us. As such, ‘luck’ becomes a term used exclusively at our convenience, as opposed to something tangible enough to justify a belief in its own right.

The world is woven from billions of lives, every strand crossing every other. What we call premonition is just movement of the web. If you could attenuate to every strand of quivering data, the future would be entirely calculable. As inevitable as mathematics.

-Sherlock, BBC Edition

Probability eliminates predestination when every roll of the dice is accounted for.

Those who seem to be blessed by divine provenance are not ‘lucky by default’. They are simply better at perceiving an omnipresent web of opportunity. For they are a part of it.

Further Reading:

‘Nobody deserves such bad luck as Boris’ – The Day (article)