Why Fay should not go to parties
On the 23rd of September, UKrant published an article in which you discuss why you still go to parties. You say you want your life back, that you personally are not at risk and that you’ve obeyed all the rules so far. You find it unfair that these rules interfere with your lifestyle. You’ve decided to break them and take your chances.
But dear Fay, going to parties because you want your life back is like peeing your pants because it is cold – it might feel good in the moment, but it will only end up making everything worse. When you go out to party, you are independently deciding to no longer follow the guidelines that are there to ensure the safety of everyone.
Let me first say that I also miss the life we had before this, but the only way we can get that life back is if you stop thinking of your own immediate desires and instead focus on what is best for everyone. For six long months you claim to have upheld the regulations, but now it’s enough. You want to party… TO LIVE!
But Fay, do you not see how wrong you are? You say you miss is your social life and going to university. You are sad that you have online classes, and even worse, you feel are being blamed for spreading the virus. Do you not see the irony here? You complain about being blamed for spreading the virus, while knowingly breaking the rules that are aimed at preventing you from doing so.
Whenever you go to a party, you put yourself at an increased risk of attracting the very virus you want to get rid of.
You are angry that others do not seem to care about the regulations as you do. They bump into you in the street. Why are people blaming you, who is not at risk, while the ones in danger are the very same people breaking the rules? It sounds like you want everyone else to obey the rules just so you can break them.expecting everyone to uphold the regulations, so that you can break them.
Your article is a moral justification for why it is okay for you to go out and party. But Fay, while you yourself may not be at enhanced risk of the virus, others around you are. You might be okay to return to university when it reopens, even with the risk of being infected, but many others are not. You tell yourself that it is okay to break the rules because even if you do get sick, your symptoms won’t be that bad.
Fay, we have these regulations to safeguard those for whom getting infected would be a serious matter. You write that you don’t visit your grandmother; what about the grandmother who stands next you in a store when you don’t know you are contagious? What about the healthcare worker who has to call in sick because you infected them? Your whole moral justification is that they should be avoiding you because you might be contagious, when it should be that you should try and not get infected at all.
You are afraid of the punishment for your actions. You don’t want to get fined for partying, which means you are aware that what you’re doing is wrong. And while you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions, you do feel the world is giving its responsibilities to you. You say that you will be ‘left to try and find jobs after this, pay tuition, solve the climate crisis’.
Do you believe you and your peers are the only ones who are affected? This crisis impacts so many others. Right now, your biggest concern seems to be that you cannot party. All the while, you continue to party. How much worse a situation would we be in right now if everyone acted like you?
I hope you can see how wrong your actions are, and I believe you and UKrant owe an apology to everyone who is affected by this crisis and all those who continue to follow the rules. When you write and publish these words with no disclaimer, you help condone, normalise, and encourage others to follow in your selfish, irresponsible footsteps.
Mathias Matzen is a student of international relations at the UG.
One year down the line, I feel like Fay was not so wrong after all!
Give that man a medal!
Yes thank you for this response.
Nice response, nice to see other voices can be heard on the topic. But I don’t understand why Fay is protected by the UKrant after making bold assumptions and posing a risk of spreading a virus. At the same time they expect their readers to reply in the most critical way possible, when that attitude is not represented in the original article. We are dealing with full grown adults here, why is the initial article about pointing fingers and confessing very reprimandable actions, yet the response can only be limited to explaining to Fay the most basic of concepts. In fact, this article feels like the way I would explain this situation to an angsty teenager. If anybody at UKrant is reading this, I seriously hope you consider carrying out more factual research backed with data instead of publishing sensational articles that belong in a blog, not a University Newspaper.