Just as the Great Plague ravaged Europe and changed the course of history, we face a different society and future because of the COVID pandemic. Differing responses to dealing with the virus reveal gaping holes in the social fabric.

The most obvious of these was the conflict over vaccination, but that was just a start. Whereas the majority of our population had accepted (and provided their children with) vaccinations against other deadly diseases such as measles, diphtheria, mumps, and poliomyelitis, the compulsory requirements for COVID raised the hackles of libertarians, objecting to government overreach in applying the rule to job applicants, entry to hospitals, restaurants and public gatherings. Lockdowns varied by state, but interfered with free movement, even to playing golf in the open air. The common good and our sense of responsibility not to infect others gave way to an excess of asserting our freedom to do our own thing.

Much of this was based on scepticism about how the virus spreads (wearing masks, hand-washing, restricting crowd size) even scepticism about science itself and the efficacy of vaccination. Fed by Donald Trump’s “fake news”, anti-Fauci rants, (“swallow cleaning fluid instead”, ‘I had COVID and recovered quickly", “take an anti-viral like ivermectin”) justifying news feeds, and reinforced by controversy over COVID’s origins in a Chinese laboratory, it’s understandable that many became hostile to mandatory vaccination. Add to that the horrific scenes of China’s apartment lockdowns and militarised enforcement, it’s unsurprising that many people refused to believe or co-operate.

Particular age groups were singled out, especially the aged. Those who were left holed up in disease-ridden aged care homes were seen as dispensable, having fewer QUALY points (Quality Adjusted Life Years) left to them, as some ageist economists put it. The whole policy debate about ageing took on a more negative tone than in previous years. Cases of youth heart effects added to the scare campaign about repeated booster shots.

All of which divided families, the wider community and caused irretrievable rifts. The old isolated themselves if they could, avoiding social gatherings, not welcoming potentially infectious guests. This drove many families apart, with arguments about the harms of vaccines and the uselessness of masks, what was true and what were devious claims by big pharma and the government medical advisers in their thrall.

The impact on families and the wider community was profound. Ritual events, even regular church-going and public meetings were atrophied, social contact limited.

Schools moved to online learning, burdening working parents with a new version of home schooling and pushing kids to online rather than physical contact with their peers, exacerbating social isolation and alienation. The disadvantaged, less well-educated parents found this new form of home-schooling daunting and kids were driven increasingly to an on-screen life.

University campus life disappeared, and young people found social interaction and mate-seeking more difficult. Whole courses could be done without any personal interaction with a lecturer or tutor. The imbalance between funding research and quality teaching increased.

Working from home became an accepted part of adult work life, relying heavily on technological competence, every change exacerbating inequality. Restrictions on numbers permitted at social gatherings, funerals, weddings and the like damaged family and community life, driving more and more people into social isolation.

The evidence (still disputed) by 2023-4 overall indicates that, across all age groups, COVID fatality rates were lower (by 73%) among people who were vaccinated than among people who were unvaccinated. Death rates varied by race (blacks and the poor who had less access to medical attention) and, of course, by lack of immunity status. Immunocompromised, often older, people suffered worse side effects than others.

Data are often unreliable and hotly disputed, but WHO (reputation-damaged) estimates indicate some 7,010,681 deaths were attributable to COVID, China refusing to give accurate counts. WHO figures were brought into doubt because of their earlier inadequate response.

National differences in restrictive responses were seen as the cause of differing death rates. Taiwan and Japan invested in the quality of indoor air, where others focused on physical contact. As of 2022, worldwide, sources estimate, there had been 778 million cases and seven million deaths. The US (slow to respond) had 103 million cases and 1.2 million deaths, with higher rates in Black and Hispanic areas. China’s official count of 122,308 included only hospital deaths from COVID, but cases there are estimated to have been between one to two million. Australian figures vary, but the Burnet Institute gives an “excess mortality” figure of 31,000 due to COVID compared with usual death rates from all causes. South Africa reported four million cases and 102, 585 deaths attributable to COVID.

Such varied stats leave room for ongoing disputes about social policies around the comparative use of lockdowns, mask use, vaccinations and antiviral drugs, the overall effect being a growing distrust of “experts”, research and science itself. Concurrently that distrust was fed by Trump, and his anti-science diatribes, as documented in the book Science Under Siege, by scientists, Peter Hortez and Michael Mann. Society fractured into warring tribes, reinforced by the algorithms of social media and targeted marketing, even leading to the extreme behaviour of so-called “sovereign citizens”.

The impact continues, as working-from-home becomes mandatory in Victoria, much teaching online continues, and social meeting places, restaurants and pub music venues stay closed. The life of school students and on university campuses is transformed forever, with unknown implications for future interpersonal life and social cohesion. And the anti-authoritarian response of many to lockdowns has morphed into radical populist protests against a wider variety of government programs seen as undermining individual “freedom” and favouring some groups over others. Such rifts, particularly the cynicism about science and expertise in general, will take many years to heal.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.