Abstract
It is not only the complexity of the pandemic that makes it a problem for thought but also its contradictory character. On many levels, the pandemic confronted us with irreconcilable demands. Preserving the life of the population has long been a primary function of modern government, as has maintaining the social and institutional conditions in which the market economy can flourish. The quarantine measures introduced to control the spread of the SARS-COV-2 virus directly contradicted the needs of the economy. Similarly, the measures introduced to protect the lives of the elderly and those most exposed to the threat of lethal illness were incompatible with the quality of life of the younger and more healthy sections of the population. The spread of disease is at once both an intensely social and public phenomenon and, under quarantine conditions, an intensely personal and private experience. The governmental responses to the pandemic in many cases involved an unprecedented level of intrusion into the everyday lives of citizens, while at the same time the disruption of established patterns of work and social life led to new forms of social engagement and solidarity. These and other tensions at the heart of responses to the pandemic make it an especially forceful provocation to thought.
