Double-edged S(words)

In my daily morning foray through the Internet, I came across an article with an intriguing title: From ‘deadly enemy’ to ‘covidiots’: Words matter when talking about COVID-19. The gist of what the author writes centers on the fact that the words we use to describe our reality act as screens that filter and orient how we think about and react to that reality. One obvious example is the frequent use of the expression “China virus”  by President Trump which so obviously fostered scapegoating and racist attitudes. Militaristic expressions such as “enemy to be beaten” also risk colouring not only the situation, but those who are involved in it as well: on the one side there are the soldiers who fight the good fight; on the other, the “covididiots” who, implicitly at least, are traitors, saboteurs, allied with the enemy. The author suggests that using a different expression than "soldiers" such as “firefighters” may foster more cooperative attitudes.

I have long been wary of using the “combat” metaphor when talking about people with debilitating or terminal illnesses. Necrologies are filled with expressions such as “he courageously fought cancer” for several years. How can that affect the self-perception of a person when she is confronted with the fact that she will ultimately lose the battle or that she no longer has the strength to “fight” on. Even if this expression is meant as an acknowledgment of the person’s courage, it has double-edged meanings: every fight has its winners and losers. I wonder if such expressions risk burdening a person who must carry the weight of her illness with an additional burden: the fear of becoming a loser.