plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20146 stories
·
20 followers

Shocking Disparities: Women Face Higher Risk of ECT - Neuroscience News

1 Share

Summary: A large international survey of 858 electroconvulsive therapy recipients found that women are twice as likely as men to receive ECT and experience more adverse effects. Women reported higher rates of memory loss, greater feelings of coercion, and more harmful emotional outcomes, often describing the treatment as retraumatizing.

They were also less likely to report mood improvement or willingness to undergo ECT again. The findings highlight systemic gender disparities in psychiatric care and call for a trauma-informed reassessment of ECT practices.

Key Facts

  • Higher Risk for Women: Women receive ECT twice as often as men and report worse outcomes, including long-term memory loss.
  • Lower Reported Benefit: Only 15% of women would choose ECT again, compared with 29% of men.
  • Trauma and Coercion: Women report more pressure to consent, less information about risks, and experiences resembling past trauma.

Source: University of East London

An international survey has found that women are twice as likely as men to receive electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and are also more likely to experience long-term memory loss and other adverse effects as a result.

The study – Electroconvulsive therapy and women: an international survey, published in Health Care for Women International – led by Professor John Read of the University of East London, gathered responses from 858 ECT recipients across 44 countries, 73% of whom were women. It is the largest survey of its kind.

While ECT is administered to around a million people every year, the study found women fared worse on nearly every measure of outcome. Women were less likely to report improved mood and more likely to describe the treatment as harmful, with significantly higher rates of both short- and long-term memory loss. Only 15% of women said they would undergo ECT again, compared with 29% of men.

Women also reported being given less information before treatment, facing greater pressure or coercion to consent, and receiving ECT from predominantly male psychiatrists – 81% worldwide and 88% in the USA.

Beyond the statistics, many women described their experiences as traumatic, echoing feelings of violation or loss of control. Accounts included being held down and “done to” against their will, reawakening memories of past abuse, and suffering lasting fear of future treatment. For some survivors of sexual violence, ECT was described as “another kind of rape – but of the mind”.

Lead author Professor John Read, Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of East London, said:

“Our findings show that women not only receive ECT more often but are also more likely to suffer its most damaging effects. These patterns cannot be dismissed as coincidence. They reflect systemic biases in psychiatry and underline the urgent need for a trauma-informed, feminist perspective on mental health care.”

Three members of the research team have had ECT themselves and have spoken of their experiences.

Lisa Morrison, lead author (Belfast, Northern Ireland):

“My experiences of rape and abuse were primarily treated with psychiatric drugs and ECT. Repeated inpatient admissions left me more and more unwell. The many diagnoses I received reinforced in me the devastating messages so many women internalise. I’m to blame. I’m bad. This is my shame.

There can’t be informed consent without being told the risks.  Despite all the evidence showing otherwise, they still tell us it’s safe and effective. Those who have the power to do something stand by. Responding to abuse with ECT, lack of informed consent and giving this ‘treatment’ involuntary is another violence against women.”

Sue Cunliffe, co-author (Worcester, England)

“I am a survivor of the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of domestic abuse victims. The very psychiatrists I trusted to rescue me shamed and blamed me, brain damaged me and made me want to die. No amount of ‘happy pills’ or ECT was going to be mind-altering enough to make the abuse I was suffering feel like I was having a fun and happy marriage.”

Sarah Hancock, co-author (San Diego, USA)

“This survey demonstrates my experience wasn’t as rare an outlier as my doctors, counsellors and mental health staff led me to believe. It is profoundly disorienting to have no frame of reference for daily interactions with family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, let alone erasing all education, work experience and cultural cues. Shared memories and life experiences are the foundation of relationships and identity. Erase them and I became a rudderless ship without an anchor.”

And co-author Dr Lucy Johnstone (Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Bristol, England) adds:

‘I have had a number of women clients who were prescribed ECT for distress related to rape or domestic abuse. This is not treatment. It is re-traumatisation, and it must stop’.

Professor Read said the findings should prompt an urgent re-evaluation of ECT’s use: “Information about sex differences in risk and outcome must be routinely given to women and their families. ECT should not be the default response to women’s suffering.”

Q: Why are women receiving electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) more often than men?

A: Survey data show women are twice as likely to be given ECT, reflecting longstanding biases in psychiatric practice and diagnostic patterns.

Q: What negative effects do women report after receiving ECT?

A: Women report significantly higher rates of long-term memory loss, short-term memory issues, trauma responses, and overall harm.

Q: Does ECT benefit women as much as men?

A: No. Women are less likely to report improved mood after ECT and far less likely to say they would undergo the treatment again.

  • This article was edited by a Neuroscience News editor.
  • Journal paper reviewed in full.
  • Additional context added by our staff.

Author: Kiera Hay
Source: University of East London
Contact: Kiera Hay – University of East London
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News

Original Research: Open access.
Electroconvulsive therapy and women: An international survey” by John Read et al. Health Care For Women International

Abstract

Electroconvulsive therapy and women: An international survey

858 electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) recipients, from 44 countries, responded to an online survey.

In keeping with previous studies, the majority (73%) were women. Most of the psychiatrists giving ECT (81%) were men.

Women patients were less likely than men to report improved mood following ECT.

Consistent with previous smaller studies, women patients also reported worse outcomes than men for multiple adverse effects, including anterograde and retrograde memory loss, and for how “harmful” ECT was in general.

Even fewer women (15%) than men (29%) said they would want to have ECT again.

Implications are discussed.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

A Chinese firm bought an insurer for CIA agents - part of Beijing's trillion dollar spending spree

1 Share
Getty Images Designed image showing a woman holding a phone to her ear, against a backdrop of Chinese flag and currency Getty Images

Since 2018, the United States has been tightening its laws to prevent its rivals from buying into its sensitive sectors – blocking investments in everything from semiconductors to telecommunications.

But the rules weren't always so strict.

In 2016, Jeff Stein, a veteran journalist covering the US intelligence community, got a tip-off: a small insurance company that specialised in selling liability insurance to FBI and CIA agents had been sold to a Chinese entity.

"Someone with direct knowledge called me up and said, 'Do you know that the insurance company that insures intelligence personnel is owned by the Chinese?'" he remembers. "I was astonished!"

In 2015, the insurer, Wright USA, had been quietly purchased by Fosun Group, a private company believed to have very close connections with China's leadership.

US concerns became immediately clear: Wright USA was privy to the personal details of many of America's top secret service agents and intelligence officials. No one in the US knew who might have access to that information now the insurer and its parent, Ironshore, were Chinese-owned.

Wright USA wasn't an isolated case.

The BBC has exclusive early access to new data that shows how Chinese state money has been flowing into wealthy countries, buying up assets in the US, Europe, the Middle East and Australia.

Jeff Stein

Jeff Stein's story brought a swift reaction in Washington

In the past couple of decades China has become the world's biggest overseas investor, giving it the potential to dominate sensitive industries, secrets and key technologies. Beijing considers the details of its foreign spending overseas – how much money it's spending and where - to be a state secret.

But on the terms of the Wright USA sale, Stein says: "There was nothing illegal about it; it was in the open, so to speak. But because everything's intertwined so closely in Beijing, you're essentially giving that [information] up to Chinese intelligence."

The Chinese government was involved in the deal: fresh data seen by the BBC reveals that four Chinese state banks had provided a $1.2bn (£912m) loan, routed through the Cayman Islands, to allow Fosun to buy Wright USA.

Stein's story ran in Newsweek magazine. And there was a swift reaction in Washington: triggering an inquiry by the branch of the US Treasury that screens investments, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Shortly after, the company was sold again - back to Americans. It's unclear who ordered that sale.

Fosun and Starr Wright USA, the company that now owns Wright USA, did not respond to a BBC request for comment.

High-level US intelligence sources confirm the Wright USA sale was one of the cases that led the first Trump administration to tighten its investment laws in 2018.

Very few could have understood at the time that this Chinese state-backed spending appears to have been part of a much bigger strategy carried out by Beijing to invest and buy assets in every continent.

"For many years, we assumed that virtually all of China's money flows were going to developing countries," says Brad Parks, executive director of AidData. "And so, it came as a great surprise to us when we realised that actually there were hundreds of billions of dollars going into places like the US, the UK and Germany, happening right underneath our noses."

AidData is a research lab based in Virginia that specialises in tracking how governments spend their money outside their borders. It's based at William & Mary, one of America's oldest universities and it gets its funding from governments and charitable organisations around the world. For the past 12 years, AidData has had a major focus on China.

A four-year effort involving 120 researchers has led to the first known effort to tally all of China's state-backed investments around the world. The group's entire dataset is available open source although the BBC was given exclusive advance access.

AidData's key discovery: since 2000, Beijing has spent $2.1 trillion outside its borders, with a roughly equal split between developing and wealthy countries.

Getty Images A container terminal at the Port of Rotterdam on April 3, 2025 in Rotterdam, Netherlands.Getty Images

More than 70% of the container shipping terminals at Rotterdam, the largest seaport in Europe, are Chinese-owned

"China has a kind of financial system that the world has never seen," says Victor Shih, director of the 21st Century China Centre at University of California San Diego. China has the largest banking system in the world – larger than the US, Europe and Japan put together, he adds.

That size, along with the amount of control Beijing exerts over state banks, gives it unique capabilities.

"The government controls interest rates and directs where the credit goes," Mr Shih says. "This is only possible with very strict capital control, which no other country could have on a sustainable basis."

Some of the investments in wealthy economies appear to have been made in order to generate a healthy return. Others fall in line with Beijing's strategic objectives, set out a decade ago in a major government initiative called Made in China 2025.

In it the Chinese authorities outlined a clear plan to dominate 10 cutting-edge industries, like robotics, electric vehicles and semiconductors by this year.

Beijing wanted to fund big investments abroad so key technologies could be brought back to China.

Global alarm at the plan led China to drop public mention of it, but Victor Shih says it "stayed very much alive" as a guiding strategy.

"There are all kinds of plans still being published," he says, "including an artificial intelligence plan and a smart manufacturing plan. However, the mother of all plans is the 15th five-year plan."

At a key meeting of the Communist Party last month, China's leaders set the goal of accelerating "high-level scientific and technological self-reliance and self-improvement" until 2030.

AidData's new database highlights state-backed spending overseas that matches the 10 sectors targeted in 2015. The BBC's earlier reporting detailed how the Chinese government bankrolled the purchase of a UK semiconductor company.

The United States, the UK and many other major economies have tightened their investment screening mechanisms after each country appears to have been caught off-guard by deals like the sale of the insurer, Wright USA.

AidData's Brad Parks says wealthy governments didn't realise at first that Chinese investments in each country were part of Beijing's larger strategy.

"At first blush, they thought it was just a lot of individual initiative from Chinese companies," he says. "I think what they've learned over time is that actually Beijing's party state is behind the scenes writing the cheques to make this happen."

However, it must be underlined that such investments and purchases are legal, even if they are sometimes obscured within shell companies or routed through offshore accounts.

"The Chinese government has always required Chinese enterprises operating overseas to strictly comply with local laws and regulations, and has consistently supported them in conducting international co-operation based on mutual benefit," the Chinese embassy in London told the BBC.

"Chinese companies not only provide quality products and services to people around the world, but also contribute actively to local economic growth, social development and job creation."

China's spending patterns are changing, the AidData database shows, with Beijing's state money flowing to countries that have decided to welcome Chinese investment.

In the Netherlands there's been debate around Nexperia, a troubled Chinese-owned semiconductor company.

It shows up in the AidData database too – Chinese state banks loaned $800m to help a Chinese consortium acquire Nexperia in 2017. Two years later, the ownership passed to another Chinese company - Wingtech.

Nexperia's strategic value was highlighted when the Dutch authorities took control of the company's operations in September - in part, the Dutch government said, over concerns that Nexperia's technology was at risk of being transferred to other parts of the larger Wingtech company.

That bold move had resulted in Nexperia effectively being cut into two – separating Dutch operations from its Chinese manufacturing.

Nexperia confirmed to the BBC that its Chinese business had stopped operating within Nexperia's governance framework and was ignoring instructions.

The company said it welcomed China's commitment to resuming exports of its critical chips to global markets.

Xiaoxue Martin, a research fellow at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague, says many in the Netherlands were surprised at how the government handled the case, since they've always managed their relationship with China carefully in the past.

"We're a country that has always done very well with open trade, free trade. And this is really the merchant side of Dutch policy," she says. "Only recently we found that actually, hold on - geopolitics makes it necessary to have more industrial policy, to have this investment screening, when in the past there wasn't that much attention for this."

Xiaoxue Martin is clear – it's easy to go too far down the path of fearing what could happen as a result of doing so much business with a superpower like China.

"There's a danger of making it seem as if China is this monolith, that they all want the same thing, and that they're all out to get Europe, and to get the United States, when obviously that's not the case," she says.

"Most companies, especially if they're private, they just want to make money. They want to be treated as a normal company. They don't want to have this negative reception that they're getting in Europe."

If China is so far ahead of its rivals in its plans to buy into sensitive sectors, does that mean the race to dominate these arenas is already over?

"No! There's gonna be multiple laps," maintains Brad Parks. "There are many Chinese companies that are still trying to make these types of acquisitions. The difference is, now they're facing higher levels of scrutiny to vet these inbound sources of foreign capital.

"So China makes its move. China is not the follower any more, it is the leader. It is the pace setter. But what I'm anticipating is that many G7 countries are going to move from the back foot to the front foot.

"They're going to move from defence to offence."

Read the whole story
sarcozona
11 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Ukraine’s kill zone: How drones ended trench warfare – POLITICO

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
22 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Beverly Glenn-Copeland featuring Elizabeth Copeland - Laughter In Summer (Live at Hackney Empire) - YouTube

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
23 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

The delicious flavour with a toxic secret

1 Share

Coumarin is mostly toxic to the liver, which plays a central role in mopping up poisons and clearing them from the body. As the front-line defence, the organ is extraordinarily resilient, able to regenerate from just a quarter of its original size. Just like alcohol, coumarin is thought to be toxic over the long term, with repeated bouts of damage.

“The problem is it’s not like you’re going to realise when you’ve got to the level where you’re eating too much – the effects build up over years,” says Dirk Lachenmeier from the Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Laboratory (CVUA) of Karlsruhe, Germany, who has developed a new way of detecting coumarin in foods.

The easy way to find out is obvious; alas, it turns out feeding people toxic chemicals isn’t allowed. Instead, the safe limits in humans are based on studies in animals, from baboons to dogs. To account for any differences in our biology, the highest amount which hasn’t caused any harm in animals is multiplied by 100.

For most people, the current limit is probably ultra conservative  

For an average-sized person, this works out at a measly one quarter of a tonka bean or a quarter of a cinnamon bun per day – though if you remove the animal-to-human 100-multiplication safety factor, your allowance shoots up to more like 25 tonka beans or 20 cinnamon buns (5680 calories, a challenge for even the most hardened binge eaters).

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

"Pluribus" captures the isolation of COVID-awareness in a COVID denialist world

1 Share

"Pluribus" captures the isolation of COVID-awareness in a COVID denialist world

For years I've described having Long COVID as living in a horror movie. Now that horror movie (well, prestige Apple TV show) is here.

Before I’d watched the first episode, Rhea Seehorn’s screaming mug on the promotional poster for Pluribus captured the heady mix of primal terror, disbelief, horror and rage that’s been stewing in me over the last several years as a homebound person living with a virus most people will not acknowledge.

On hearing the show’s stated premise, I was even more intrigued: “The most miserable person on Earth must save the world from happiness.”

In my daily life as a Long COVID patient, disabled by an infection in late 2023, it sounded like a tagline I might write about my own efforts over the last several years.

The happiness in question, of course, being “back to normal” - a state of affairs wherein all humans are repeatedly infected with a dangerous virus while being told it’s safe to catch, slowly or rapidly losing their health over time at varying rates. I.e., a false happiness.

The happiness in Pluribus, too, is a false one. And it, too, is spread by a virus of sorts.

I don’t believe Vince Gilligan set out to write Pluribus as a COVID analogy, but unmissable references to the pandemic abound as he sets up his “joining event.”

[SPOILERS AHEAD]

After astronomers detect a repeating, non-randomized sequence beaming at Earth from hundreds of light-years away, they set about decrypting it and soon realize the quaternary signal codes for the four components of DNA.

Months later, in a government lab, two scientists are shown experimenting on lab rats when one breaks PPE protocol. “I can’t feel anything in these gloves,” she complains, stripping off an outer-layer, heftier glove and revealing a thin rubber glove beneath. (I like the shades of anti-condom and anti-mask language in this throw-away line; there are, of course, other ways to go about doing what she needs to do without shedding PPE; protocols exist for a reason.)

Just then, the thought-to-be-dead mouse she’s handling bites her; it’s both an animal-to-human transmission event, and a lab leak.

She collapses but appears to be regaining consciousness as her lab partner carries her from the room. When we next see the lab partner, he’s approaching a security guard- and kissing him on the mouth. Mouth to mouth transmission continues through several scenes. At one point, Patient Zero opens a box of donuts and carefully begins licking them all, top to bottom, and replacing them.

As each worker is kissed, licked, and infected, they gather and familiar swabs appear. They begin, in creepy coordination, using the type of swabs we’re all so familiar with from COVID testing, to swab their cheeks, drawing little smiley faces into now infected specimen dishes. The dishes are then packed away, presumably to be shipped off for their mass infection project.

Let’s take a moment here. Whether or not Vince Gilligan meant to evoke the pandemic with this show, this is a show carrying a lot of psychic COVID baggage. The show begins with misused PPE, animal transmission/lab leak (pick your theory!), and the inversion of early pandemic measures.

Rather than social distancing, these characters immediately begin kissing on the mouth. To me- and I’d guess, many other COVID cautious individuals, the invaded personal space and licked donuts evoke people’s continued insistence that they have the right not to isolate and mask while infected with COVID.

What’s mine is yours, what’s yours is mine.

Rather than swab to prevent the spread of disease, they swab to further it. And while to many this may feel like a far-fetched, sci-fi premise, for those of us living with Long COVID, it does in fact feel that most people today are actively promoting the spread of COVID rather than engaging with our ongoing efforts to halt and reduce the virus’ spread.

For example, we’ve known for years that cleaning the indoor air by introducing higher ventilation standards and HEPA filtration standards would drastically reduce airborne illness. There’s a new technology called Far UVC that inactivates viral pathogens in the air. Combining these two could be a game changer- drastically reducing how much we all get sick. Yet no matter how much we bring up this idea- and no matter how often and how seriously their children get sick- people seem to prefer getting sick than breaking from The Borg.

And The Borg, to be clear, is approximately where the show goes next.

This “virus” from space functions to join all humans together into one superbeing- a hive mind. Well, almost all. Carol, our hero, does not get absorbed into what Pluribus dubs “The Joining”. Neither do 12 others. “In Albuquerque?” asks Carol, hopefully. “In the world,” responds Everyone.

During the “joining event” during which the vast majority of the world population uploads into one hive mind, Carol’s partner is one over 800 million people who don’t survive the process. I found this artistic choice to be both interesting and important.

First, “The Joining” itself is a mass death event. To get to the other side- the “new normal” that is so wonderful, 800+ million people must die, but this is neither commented on nor mourned by the survivors. If and when it is broached by Carol, the fact is met with discomfort- not because of the death, but because of the topic of death. “Ya gotta break a few eggs!” she shouts sarcastically to a sullenly quiet room.

Secondly, there is the narrative decision to take Carol’s partner off the board, and how this affects her character and the character’s willingness to be hostile to “the new normal”. As a COVID safe person myself who’s been active in this community for some time, a partner who is not themselves COVID safe is an incredibly difficult dynamic to navigate and ultimately leads usually to either a break-up or the COVID-safe person pushing their boundaries in order to join the “back to normal” world.

We see this play out when Carol insists on meeting the handful of other English-speaking people who were not able to “join” with the hive mind. Unlike Carol, all of them bring family members, and all of these family members have “joined.” One woman who is particularly hostile to Carol, Laxmi, has a young son.

While Carol immediately wants to discuss how to bring down the hive mind, the other unjoined individuals disagree with her. They want to join their family members.

This felt realistic to me as a COVID-safe individual without children or a COVID-unsafe partner. In particular, parents of young children seem to avoid information about COVID-19, and even people who previously sought out such information may avoid it once having children. It’s more pleasant to be part of a group that says COVID is not dangerous - and psychologically more soothing- than it is to look more closely when people you love are on the line.

Especially when those people you love may be out of your control. If you can’t control what is going on at your child’s school- if you can’t control what your partner does outside of your home- if you can’t control what your parents choose to do- isn’t it better to join the “back to normal” party and have some fun, than to rage against the machine? To be the world’s most miserable person trying to save the world from happiness?

This dynamic is well represented in Laxmi and her son. As Carol- with nothing left to lose- begs her to understand that her son is not really her son anymore, but is also an ex-boyfriend, and a pilot, and a trained gynecologist- Laxmi grows more and more hostile, insisting that she knows her own son. At dinner, Carol begins asking him technical questions about gynecology, which he immediately answers, much to Laxmi’s horror and offense.

Unsurprisingly to anyone in the COVID-safe community however, she is not angry with the Hive Mind for infecting her son; she is angry with Carol for exposing how the virus has affected him.

It’s unclear how much the Hive Mind itself can question or break free from the virus. We know that when Carol loses her temper, the Hive Mind goes into some sort of shutdown mode, seizing up and causing worldwide chaos. People behind the wheels of cars, flying airplanes, whatever they may be doing, get into accidents; it’s mentioned that the first time Carol yells at the Hive Mind, 11 million people die.

“Shutdown Mode” feels like a pretty apt comparison for those of us attempting to get information about our situation living with Long COVID to the wider world. We have a smaller, more aware community that argues with us about the best course of action- people like Laxmi. These people may understand that COVID exists and is infecting people, but feel that “it’s here to stay,” “we can’t fight it”, and “I’d rather be with my family”- giving themselves up to the virus in order to join with the majority due to fear of isolation.

And then we have the larger world, the “back to normal” world, much of which acknowledges no threat from COVID, some of which simply cannot and does not say the word COVID and seems to go into some sort of fugue state when it’s mentioned.

These are the people who repeatedly post things like “there is a respiratory virus going on and it’s not the flu and it’s not RSV and it’s a mystery virus and I have no idea what it could be”. Nurses who don’t mask in a NICU. Leftists throwing superspreader events during COVID waves and ignoring every disabled person asking them about protocols. People who cannot seem to fathom any middle ground between “2020 lockdown” and “doing literally nothing at all ever to prevent COVID spread”.

People online claiming they’ve “never had the virus” when their own post history shows that they’ve had it several times. People mocking those who mask when they previously begged people to mask for the safety of family members. People asserting they’ve had “no lasting damage” from COVID while listing new onset medical issues they’re suffering from since their infections (I can’t, of course, know for certain which medical issues are arising from which infections, nor do I claim to; but by that same token, when a certain medical issue is a known sequelae of COVID, it can’t be ruled out by the person in question as a post-COVID medical issue either).

I’ve often spoken about the experience of Long COVID feeling like living inside a horror movie. Because it’s not merely that we’re so sick with this new disease- a disease our doctors don’t understand, often knowing less about it than we do, staring blankly at us as we bring up new studies and clinical trials. It’s not merely that we’re so sick and we don’t know for sure what is going wrong inside us- a freaky, body horror sort of feeling.

It is not just the illness. It is the bizarre social response to COVID that has grown up around us that isolates and alienates us, creating a constant sense of pressure, anxiety and tension. People do not believe in our illness, and not only do they not care to help us avoid reinfection, they actively work to ensure that reinfection risk is as high as it can possibly be.

When we ask people who nominally believe in listening to marginalized groups to do bare minimum things to reduce infection risk, they, along with the rest of the Hive Mind, resort to insults and mockery. There is no left or right anymore; it’s dizzying. There’s just: The Blob. A massive group of Most Everyone on Earth who Does Not Care that COVID disabled us and we must avoid reinfection.

A massive Hive Mind who won’t stop kicking us while we’re down, recoils at the thought of reducing spread of the virus, and shrieks if try to explain that yes, we really got disabled by COVID and we really exist. “Leftists” who agree with fascists that it’s unreasonable to ask people to mask in a pharmacy or a grocery store to reduce the spread of a virus that disables people.

Why? I’ve never encountered something so strange, so bizarre.

Each day I feel like I’m waiting for some fever to break, but it never does. While I lost my ability to walk down the street as a 38-year-old, no one would acknowledge anything was wrong, nor acknowledge why I might want to avoid another infection. “We’re back to normal,” says the Blob, “this is normal.”

I am in a support group with dozens of other Long COVID patients where we discuss treatments, doctors, experiences, medications. One woman recently shared that she can no longer transfer from her wheelchair to make it to the bathroom independently. I felt so deeply terrified. Online, the Hive Mind mocks us.

The quietest channel in my Long COVID support group is called “Improvements/Recovery”. No one ever really posts there.

The Hive Mind shares one overwhelming belief, downstream from which all other behaviors flow: COVID is harmless. If that foundational belief shatters- the central tentpole of back to normal which has been supporting a fantasy world since 2021-2022- everything else must be rebuilt from the ground up. It is, as some have put it, a “load bearing delusion.”

But it’s not the first, only, or last load-bearing delusion our society runs on, and that’s why it doesn’t surprise me that Gilligan could write a show so closely matching my experience while not necessarily thinking of my life with Long COVID at all.

The idea that we continue burning fossil fuels the way we are- that we can continue expanding fossil fuel infrastructure- that’s a load bearing delusion. Nothing that anyone in government is doing matches anything near the scale of the crisis, and yet everyone walks around grinning and flying and partying like there’s no tomorrow. Hell, there might not be!

Capitalism, unchecked growth and consumption on a planet with finite resources, will lead to a middle-class American lifestyle for all before the world is scorched: load bearing delusion.

Everyone gets equal opportunity in the land of the free and the rich are rich because they worked harder than you and the homeless are homeless because they made bad choices: load bearing delusion.

Poor countries are poor because of bad governance, not because of decades of neocolonial pillage and foreign resource control by the first world: load bearing delusion.

I could go on.

And for me it’s interesting because, when I hear the words, “back to normal,”- back to normal in the context of COVID, of the lockdowns, of the pandemic, I also hear them in regard to every single one of those other load bearing delusions just listed.

“Back to normal” was never just about forcing you to accept that life was going to be worse from now on, and you better not think about fighting back. You better not demand paid sick leave for the many more days a year you’ll be out sick. You better not ask for legal protections since this new virus might end up disabling you at work. You better not ask for clean air or far UVC. You better not even ask for COVID tests that consistently work.

It was also about getting back to the office. About losing that little taste of free healthcare you got, and extra unemployment. About halting the George Floyd protests. Ever notice how often people talk about “woke dying” and “woke died back in 2020” or “you can’t tweet like it’s 2021 anymore”? Back to normal was about Back to NORMAL because people had a little too much time, a little too much money, a little too much attitude, and a little too much freedom.

They said back to normal, and they meant back to normal. All of it. Capitalism, racism, sexism, environmental destruction, and disease. Back to the office. Welcome back, back to the Hive Mind. Hustle for your check. Buy yourself something nice. Immigrants are the problem. Disabled people are the problem. Trans people are the problem. Woke is dead. Now take that fucking mask off your face.

At one point in Pluribus, Carol is speaking to the Hive Mind, in the body of an authority figure. He assures her they are going to “figure out what is wrong with you,” and when she asks what he means, he replies, “so you can join us.”

This is the ask of our state, of our governments. If you’re COVID conscious, they want to psychologize you, stigmatize you, threaten you, until you “go back to normal.” They want us to join back up with the Hive Mind that tells us to leave any weak and wounded person behind to suffer and die. That there is no society, and no community- only capitalism, only hedonism, only selfishness, only consumerism.

For those of us who are sick, homebound and bedbound, it’s admittedly, a bit harder. It is a bit harder to propagandize a person who’s been disabled by a virus that that virus isn’t dangerous. But should we ever recover, we too will be encouraged to rejoin the Hive Mind, encouraged to forget our fellow disabled comrades, encouraged to learn no lessons, practice no solidarity, fight no battles but those we fight for ourselves.

I think- I hope- that that won’t happen. In Carol I already see a hero for the COVID era, for the COVID aware, and for the Long COVID community.

So, thank you Vince Gilligan.

If you haven’t had the pleasure, allow me to introduce us: I’m Julia, and I’m part of the Long COVID community. We’re the most miserable people on Earth. And we’re here to save the world from happiness.

Discussion about this post

Send this story to NewsBlur
Shared stories are on their way...
Read the whole story
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories