At first I laughed and then I was impressed.

I saw a lot of people ridiculing this poster encouraging people to take selfies whilst getting the vaccine.

In fact, I too thought it was quite silly and funny at first.
It was only later on, that it struck me that this was a masterpiece of behavioral psychology in action.
In fact, I think it is quite a bold and forward-thinking step by the ministry of health or whoever thought of it, to come up with such a novel idea.
I am quite sure by encouraging selfies whilst being vaccinated will contribute immensely to reduce vaccine hesitancy and scare amongst a lot of people. Kudos to whoever that came up with this brilliant piece of communication and had the balls to execute it knowing that most people might misunderstand the intention.

Easier Done than Said

The purpose of an army is to fight the enemy and protect their country. They are trained to fight and be tough in any circumstances.

However, the Sri Lankan Army had to do an about-face when it came to the battle against covid 19. They were at the forefront of our vaccination drive. 

And I was lucky enough to get my vaccine from a vaccination center managed and operated by the Sri Lankan army.

I was expecting to be treated with a certain degree of gruffness. To have commands shouted at me. Like they do to young trainees in the movies. But all I saw was absolute kindness, gentleness, and caring by everyone. 

From the soldier standing guard outside, carrying a menacing machine gun, to the persons who were directing and registering the people coming in, and the medical staff on duty. Never have I seen such clockwork-like precision, efficiency, and dedication.

It took me less than thirty minutes to go in and come out. It would have been even shorter if not for me taking the time to fill out the consent form. I was impressed that they even had a box full of pens that we could use if we had forgotten to bring our own pen, which I had.

I have not been a big fan of most of the things which this government has been doing even though I voted for them. Best out of the bad lot as I say. But I must say in this instance they are doing something right. And we need to applaud the good with equal intensity as we criticize the bad.

Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc

If you have studied logic then this phrase would be familiar to you.

If not, it means, after this, therefore, because of this in Latin.

It is also a term used to describe when people connect two unrelated articles to arrive at a conclusion.
For instance, a black cat crossed the road in the morning and therefore I had an accident later on.
I scored less in the exam because I forgot to wear my lucky shirt.
I am sure you can think of many such incidents in your life.
I witnessed one such incident on a global scale recently.

When it came to the news of Ronaldo bringing down the share price of Coca-Cola.
I really do not need to elaborate more as you are bound to have heard about this unless you are living under a rock.
Social Media was ablaze with people quoting, tweeting, and doing TikTok's about this.
In fact, some friends called me just to share the news.
From board rooms to Newsrooms people were discussing intently the might of the influencer. 

The power of social media. And of course David Vs Goliath and similar tales of such ilk.
Even I joined the bandwagon.
Then something odd caught my eye. Even though the graphs that were being shown and the figure of 4 BILLION DOLLARS made it look like a large amount of money; if you take a closer look, the price reduction was just 90 cents or 1.6%.
Which is not much, when it comes to a day's trading.
And then I came across this article in the Forbes Magazine which explained things in detail. Let me quote from the article.
"It is true that Ronaldo, in front of the press, declined to drink the strategically-placed Coca-Colas on offer. It is also true that, by the time the press conference was over, Coca-Cola’s value was down $4 billion. However, there were other factors affecting the beverage giant’s stock price."
Coca-Cola has 4.3 billion shares, and closed on Friday, June 11, with a share price of $56.16 for a market value of $242 billion.
On Monday, June 14, Coca-Cola opened lower, at 9:30 a.m. EST.
At 9:40 a.m. EST, its stock price was $55.26 (down 1.6%) and the market value had dipped to $238 billion, $4 billion lower than the prior day.
Cristiano Ronaldo moves the Coca-Cola bottles at 9.43 a.m. EST, and says “Água”.
In other words, Ronaldo's action did not have any effect on the stock price.
In fact, it was a natural price movement as Coca-Cola had just finished paying dividends to its shareholders thus making the share less attractive.
But some of us are prone to believe what we would like to believe.
So much so there is a phrase for it. Confirmation Bias.
But in the end, all it was is a classic case of "Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc".

Can you actually prevent people from drinking by banning liquor sales?

So everyone was agog with excitement when it was announced that the Ministry of Finance has given the go-ahead for online liquor sales.

However, within the next couple of hours, their hopes were dashed when our not-so-loved Army commander stated that the Covid Prevention task force has not given permission to do so.

There were several other groups who were vociferously against this as well. For various reasons of their own.

But the important question to ask is are they actually preventing people from drinking?

The answer is a resounding No.

Those who drink will still drink. By hook or by crook. If it's not booze bought at black market prices then it will be moonshine.

I was watching an interview online with the Commissioner-General of Excise. He stated that the banning of liquor sales was a double-edged sword.

On one side the government is losing much-needed revenue. On the other side, there will be an additional strain on our already stretched medical services due to Alcohol poisoning as more and more people turn to Moonshine.

Anyway, I have always been puzzled by our society's and thereby our government's attitude towards alcohol.

Why are we trying to control it so much? What is our problem with it?

Of course, I don't mean that alcohol should be given freely to youngsters. I believe that a more moderate stance should be taken where we promote responsible drinking instead of these fanatical arbitrary measures. Even in India who I thought was far more fanatical than we are, one can order and have liquor delivered to your home.

If an adult wants to purchase a bottle of alcohol why should so many obstacles be placed on his way.

I said he and not she intentionally.

Because even in these modern times it is illegal for a female to purchase alcohol. Yes, the law was removed but then it was reintroduced 4 days later.

Fortunately, the law is not enforced. Other than bringing us international shame it looms over us like a sword of Damocles to be used by some unscrupulous law enforcement authority to violate human rights.

Some are against the sale of liquor saying it deteriorates our social fabric. That alcohol leads to violence and abuse.

I do not deny that. Of course, there are more than a few instances where we have seen inebriated people resort to violence.

But does that mean ALL those who drink behave in such an irresponsible manner? No!

Then why punish the whole for the mistakes of a few?

My personal point of view is Alcohol does not CAUSE social issues. But people are lead to drink BECAUSE of the social issues they face.

Others say it is because of our Buddhist Heritage.

Again, if we followed the principles of Lord Buddha, then we should stop drinking on our own accord. Instead of being forced to do so.

In non-lockdown times during Poson liquor sales would be banned for 5 days.

Does it stop anyone from drinking? No, people just stock up, as you can see from the lines outside the liquor stores during pre-poya days.

And the worst is those who enact these laws do not practice what they preach. As we saw recently when the Sathosa outlet in Anuradhapura was forced open, apparently by the army and 8000 bottles of liquor were "Bought".

In the end, all this is nothing but pious posturing. To impress who? I am yet to figure it out.

Why aren't the so-called representatives of the people making some noise about the downside of the liquor ban?

Well, one main reason is that when liquor is sold through the official channels, it is the government coffers that get filled. However, when it is sold illegally it is the pockets of the black marketers and Kassippu Mudalali's that are getting filled. They are the same people who will fund the political campaigns of our representatives when it comes to election time.

Frustrating much? It sure is for me. I need a drink to make it all go away.