Frivolous?

When it is the worst of times, I find that I am invariably considered frivolous. Rightfully so, probably, considering that I have never managed to understand how moping about how bad things are helps the situation. That, though, apparently is a prerequisite to let people know you are taking things seriously. If you go further and start mourning the end of the world then you are indeed the pinnacle of social consciousness.
But, then, I never did manage to see why funny is necessarily frivolous. I mean, yes, when there is a dangerous situation, to pooh-pooh the real dangers IS being frivolous. But why is it that I cannot even write funny things about other every day matters OR laugh at harmless jokes without being blamed of frivolity? Is it so necessary that, to show how seriously I take an issue, I have to go around perpetually moaning about it?
But, then, THAT is another of those very many things I have never understood. I mean, I have never yet seen hardship go away merely because I am shedding tears about how bad things are. Fate, apparently, takes no cognizance of your agony, doesn't relent merely because you sob all over its shirtfront. On the other hand, acknowledging the hardship but not allowing it to prey on your mind makes it easier to bear. Or so I always thought. Looks like I am wrong. All the world seems to think that it is necessary to be groaning under the yoke from dawn to dusk when hardship comes your way.
Seems to me that people do not realize the difference between sharing information which helps others to take appropriate precautions and sharing information that merely serves to worry people. AND, just in case the difference is not clear, when there is potential danger pointed out about which you can do something, it is the former. Where the potential danger is something about which you can do nothing, then all you can do is worry. Like, if you say avoid social contact during an epidemic, it is useful. The economy is going into a tailspin and the world is going into a depression? Now, not being the finance minister or a World Bank honcho, I really don't see how it helps me to know that, except to start me worrying about holding on to my job or paying the EMIs.
But, then, it is sort of ingrained since childhood in us, I suppose. "Don't cry, or else the boogie-man will carry you away" and all that. So, unless you are threatened with dire consequences, you will never do what is needed, so piling threat upon threat upon threat has become sort of second nature to feel that you are getting your point across about how important it is to control the spread of the virus. Except, of course, that most of those threats do not even offer the hope that the predicted gloom may be averted by taking some action.
Essentially THAT. Hope. IF you have no hope to offer, no plan of action to suggest, then better not keep sharing the threats. For, after all, if you convey the message that a dire end is inevitable, you end up making people feel that there is no point in being careful, since it is all going to come to a bad end anyway.
But, then, that's me. I, who think that it is still OK to have what fun you can, laugh when you can, enjoy what you can enjoy, as long as you are taking the precautions suggested. Frivolous, that's the only word for me.
I'm fine with it. One can be lot worse things than just frivolous, after all.