Coronavirus: completely outstripping the efforts of governments, campaigners and technology to change the way we behave, work, consume.

People have died who wouldn't have in normal circumstances, and cruel and unexpected grief is hitting hard.

But could coronavirus, and the illness it causes, Covid-19, actually be the best thing that has happened to the planet, completely outstripping the efforts of governments, campaigners and technology to change the way we behave, work, consume?

I've had breakfast in my garden more times in the past week than the previous 26 years combined. The sky was cloudless and blue; there were none of the until-recently more normal dozens of vapour trails.

There was no traffic noise - the ambient hum of the M56 three miles away is absent.

My car hasn't left the drive for weeks, although when it did I was caught in perhaps the only jam in Europe - behind two bloody-minded cyclists who insisted on riding side-by-side, thereby perpetuating the tarring of all cyclists with the same brush.

Anyway, when I have worked have I needed to meet anybody face-to-face? Nope, not really, although there will always be those meetings where an indiscernible advantage to all involved is to be had because of the necessity of drawing a point-making diagram, or personality, or simply exuding body-language enthusiasm or scepticism that simply doesn't come across in a Zoom conference call.

Then there's the issue of self-important travel: that meeting in New York, or Washington, or Paris, or London, or some conference city in Europe. Is the meeting important? Maybe a few in amongst the many. Do the participants feel important because they've said they can't do something else because they're in New York/Washington/Paris/London? Would they make as much of a play of not being available for something because they were in somewhere more humble like Warrington, or Stoke or Slough.

Do we actually need to go to any of these places when, ironically, as a generation which invented and took technology to unimaginable levels we don't use it to a fraction of its potential?

Do all 300 people on a flight from Heathrow to New York actually NEED to be on it?

Now, I'm a supporter of aviation, but primarily for leisure with the likes of Virgin, and community essentials with the likes of the marvelous Loganair. We can't have a holiday by Zoom, nor can we supply meds to remote Scottish islands by email.

I've remained infuriated for some time by somebody who flew to Australia for a two-hour meeting, and then took the very next flight back home. More time was spent boasting about the "hardship" of the journey than about the meeting content, which, by other accounts, was a complete waste of time because the traveller was so wasted by the time he got there that he could barely stay awake.

Let the tech do the work for most business; save most aviation for leisure.

How much business flying have I done that might be considered essential? Probably a quarter of what I actually did in the past five years. The rest was either last-minute-panic or insistence-on-attendance at meetings that probably actually didn't need to happen.

I had socially-distanced drink with my neighbour late yesterday afternoon. A big part of our discussion was how this coronavirus nonsense would change the world.

Would either of us travel as much after this was over? Nope. Had we seen the benefits of video conferencing? You bet. Did we expect to have a holiday in the near future? Probably not.

Have world leaders been exposed for the truly competent or incompetent they really are? Resoundingly.

I can't see myself ever travelling to the USA ever again.

View all blog articles