Skip to main content

The Supermarket

 

This blog began as a sort of diary of the pandemic, then became something rather else, as Covid and the politics surrounding it got ever weirder.

Now, as I'm moving through my own surprisingly mild case of Covid — and wondering just a bit what the fuss was all about — I find that (a) I feel poorly enough to not pressure myself about writing something new this week, and (b) maybe I should go back and review what the fuss was all about.

Here, then, is my very first post, dated March 22, 2020, when lockdown was imminent, and when the "novel coronavirus" was young and terrifying. As you read, it's worth remembering, perhaps with a certain morbid amusement, that we were all advised not to wear masks.

 

Mostly we’re waiting. Mostly we're puttering, trying to achieve some semblance of normal life, despite this insistent background hum of anxiety. So we wait, and we try to figure out what to expect. None of the answers fill us with confidence.

Peggy and I are privileged — if that’s the right word — to be able to live at maybe eighty percent of our pre-virus lives. At least for now. I am acutely aware that this is not true for most people, is completely the opposite for many, and is catastrophic for more than we can bear to think about.

I think about people already ill with other things. People either losing, or terrified of losing, their incomes. People on the front lines of our deplorably meager medical defenses, who risk their lives with every breath they take in their work environment. 

So yes, I am keenly aware of the privilege I enjoy — if that’s the right word. The fact that we are in the high-risk category somehow seems a cop-out, but it keeps me here in the house. I might as well write. It's what I do, after all, but it doesn't feel especially useful.

So far, Berkley isn’t showing overt signs of the spread. Just caution. And edginess. Everybody knows what’s coming, but nobody knows when. We don’t yet know of anyone who is infected. But the viral arithmetic is almost beyond comprehension.

Or maybe the edginess is just me. Hard to tell lately. Yesterday morning I had an unusual few hours. I was up before 5 a.m. I was checking the news and working up some rage at Republicans — to whom I assign responsibility for our idiotic level of preparedness — for the forty-plus years they have spent undermining science, expertise, and simple competence, all with a transparently malignant purpose unheard of in an industrialized democracy (if that’s what we still are). More on this another time. 

But as this rage was percolating, it morphed into an obsessive trepidation about the commitment I had made to make an 8 a.m. trip to the supermarket for one last grab at some groceries to put away or freeze.

To be sure, Peggy was not happy about this idea, and while I would have let her forbid me, we basically agreed that it was still early in the crisis and there were some gaps in our supplies that it would be really nice to fill. Was this reasoning sound or suicidal? Remains to be seen. But the prospect of performing this ordinarily effortless task was now more daunting than I expected.

Which is when an unfamiliar feeling consumed me, which I can now say for sure was terror. It was intense, it was more than just a background hum, and it almost brought me to tears. (It did bring Rachel Maddow to tears when she closed Friday’s show eulogizing the NBC cameraman who died of the virus).

The hardest part is not knowing if you’re doing everything — or even anything — right. What if you screw up? What if something bad happens? What if you do everything right and something bad happens anyway? What if you do everything wrong and nothing bad happens? What if bad has already happened and you won’t know for a week?

All we know for sure is that we’ll never know how we got it. Or from whom. Or how long ago. Or what we did or didn’t do to catch it.

With this in mind, and with terror coursing through my veins (notice how every little thing feels like it's coursing through our veins these days), I set out for the supermarket.

It’s not that it was crowded by normal standards. But there were definitely more people than I cared to worry about keeping six feet from. Still, I gloved up, Lysol-wiped the cart handle, and headed inside.

It was hard. It did little to reduce my stress level. Everyone was vigilant, most were respectful and polite, some were a little too cavalier about the six feet thing. I wasn’t the only one moving from aisle to aisle avoiding anyone coming in the other direction. I didn’t want to squeeze by them, but a few times there was no choice.

Violations of the six feet rule were inevitable, but I never got closer than a meter (the W.H.O.’s guideline), and I always faced away from the person. Was this smart? Was it effective? Who knows?

I’ll find out—or not find out—in a week or two. But in terms of its strategic goals, the mission was successful. Our well-stocked house is now more well-stocked. Privilege again.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Blackmail for Fun and Profit

Once in a while, I like to use this space to indulge in some idle speculation, taking a few what-ifs and seeing where they lead. I tend to do this in response to some stimulus, some ping to my brain. Which is just what Keith Olbermann provided in one of his podcasts last week. He was talking about Jeff Bezos’ upcoming wedding to Lauren Sanchez, the woman with whom Bezos had been having the affair that ultimately ended his marriage. You'll recall that in 2019, Trump operators had a heavy hand in that breakup, having attempted to blackmail Bezos into coercing The Washington Post, which he owns, into covering Trump more obsequiously. It's rare to see such an instance of high-level blackmail surface in public, and we only know about it because Bezos didn't bite. He outed himself, he went public about the whole affair, thereby ending his marriage, which was apparently on the ropes anyway. An unusually happy postscript to this otherwise routine multi-bill

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance. What she said about the "both sides" problem in journalism is nothing new. But to those of us who've been screaming about it for years, it's refreshing to hear it denounced by a mainstream journalist of her stature, in a venue that serves as an incubator of mainstream journalism. While she declined to mention names, there was no doubt about the targets of her irritation. CNN and its chairman, Chris Licht, were still licking their wounds from their treacherous but buffoonish

The Definition of Defamation is Up in the Air

Underlying all the recent commotion surrounding Fox, Tucker Carlson, and the mess they've created for themselves, there's an important legal issue that has flown largely under the radar, but may soon be ready for its closeup. It's a First Amendment issue concerning the meaning of defamation, and the standard that must be met to prove it. The constitutionality of the existing standard was expected to be tested in the Fox-Dominion case, had that case come to trial. But since that didn't happen, I figured it would go back to the back burner. But then, last week, Ron DeSantis had it blow up in his face , giving the whole issue new momentum, and from a surprising direction. His own people took him down. DeSantis had talked his pet legislature into launching an outrageous assault on freedom of the press, eviscerating existing libel laws, and making it easier for public figures — like, say, DeSantis himself— to sue for defamation. One can just imagine DeSantis cackling