How do you over the government is handling the Coronavirus crisis?
Your view might depend on where in the UK you are peruse this.
It might depend on your own circumstances.
Your family, your form, your age, your faith, your job.
Each one of us is wrestling with a exact personal set of dilemmas around risk and responsibilities.
The risk to our health and others, the gamble to our livelihoods.
The responsibilities to our families, our employees, our community.
Lay people – ie most of us – are essaying to interpret fairly generic symptoms, particularly in children.
We might be torment about the wellbeing of (otherwise well) children caught in quarantine because others are unwell.
What around the trade off between our domestic responsibilities and those we might have as key women to wider society?
And then, enter next, the government – like any other organisation, a gathering of fallible individuals – caught up in this like the rest of us, but making decisions of a bigness they have never made before and probably never take it as gave ever having to make.
A rapidly changing global situation collides with mammoth trade offs between giant concepts – such as liberty and security.
A prime minister, famed for his phraseology and his capacity to communicate, faces scream criticism in The Times.
“The prime minister who dreamt of being Churchill may experience himself cast as Neville Chamberlain,” The Times said in a wounding swipe; Boris Johnson is, it titles, “hesitant and behind the curve”.
And yet at least one poll suggested broad certify for the government’s approach.
Then there’s the alien concept, let alone the not quite heard phrase, a matter of weeks ago, of social distancing.
Again, admonition we are left to wrestle with: the pub and the leisure centre are shut. But do get fresh air, the medics make one thought.
Cue a weekend of spots famed for their fresh air proving rather predominant.
Perhaps some wantonly ignoring advice. Perhaps others performance in good faith personally, but discovering others have independently preferred to do exactly the same thing, collectively defeating the object.
There be compelled be a louder, more comprehensive public education campaign, some want.
The government counters it is the biggest ever in peacetime.
Behavioural science is being deployed – goes to predict how society will react.
But attempting to predict how we will collectively be affected to something entirely unprecedented in the lifetimes of any of us.
This is, bluntly, a grave, three dimensional, at once changing situation, where none of us from the prime minister down can be definite what the outcome will be; medically, psychologically, sociologically on any of us; all of us.
And here’s the prime truth.
None of us are observers.
We are all participants.