Having written several articles recently with a 'negative' slant (aka: arguing against something, rather than in favour), my intention for the next piece was something lighter and more positive, as my initially jocular J.J. Abrams piece was intended to be before the fatal mistake was made of doing research. I wrote the following as a comment in a debate about safety vs freedom on another site, though, and it seemed worth reposting here in expanded form as a summary of my current thoughts on the matter. Rest assured, more positive pieces, unrelated to COVID-19, are on the way.
To make absolutely clear from the start: COVID-19
is a highly infectious, potentially fatal illness for which there is no
known cure. It has to be taken seriously and it is entirely correct
that social measures and restrictions are taken to limit its spread. The
question is how far those measures should go.
It’s often said that you can’t put a value on human life and that
it’s cold to try. I’d argue we as a society do it every day. Not just
financially, in terms of allocating healthcare resources, for instance,
but socially, in terms of consciously weighing up the benefits of
freedom against the costs of security. Alcohol and tobacco cost a huge
number of lives every year, yet we have (so far) decided that the
pleasure they bring to people is worth the cost in lives. Driving causes
a huge number of fatal accidents, yet we continue to allow it because
of its enormous value in improving mobility and we
constantly weigh how fast drivers should be permitted to go against
the chance of an accident leading to death. There are many diseases and
illnesses which are highly contagious and kill many people per year, yet
we don’t shut down society every time flu season comes around.
In the space of a few weeks, we’ve seen every free nation around the world bar one* become a de facto police state, placing entire populations under effective house arrest. As I said, there are many reasons why restricting people’s liberty in this case is not only justified, but essential – having a vaccine against flu but not COVID-19 is a big part of it. However, I have severe reservations about how quickly our fundamental liberties have been taken away based on highly incomplete data.
(For those wondering, the ‘bar one’ is Sweden, which is taking a more light-touch approach to limiting the COVID-19 spread. There are reasons why their approach might be viable there and not in other countries - a larger number of single-generation households, for instance - but it will interesting to see how it fares for them and whether they have to eventually adopt the most widespread authoritarian approach.)
The Precautionary Principle – that action against a potential disaster should not be delayed until only after a complete body of scientific evidence is formed – is grounded in an essential truth (if we waited for a full picture on COVID-19 before doing anything and it turned out as deadly as the worst estimates, millions of lives could be lost) but also extremely vulnerable to abuse and overreaction.
Imperial College, whose modelling is being used as the basis for the social crackdown, was also behind the foot-and-mouth outbreak modelling which led to the slaughter of millions of farm animals and cost the country billions. Imperial might be correct this time – although their estimates have already been massively downgraded – but their modelling is by no means perfect.
COVID-19 is, I reiterate, to be taken seriously and taking no action could lead to a large number of preventable deaths, but we also should be asking what sort of society those people will be surviving into, and how many lives will be lost through poverty, depression and suicide if actions today lead to not only a massive financial depression, collapse in employment, businesses and available jobs, but also a State which has had a taste of near-absolute power. The tragedy of 9/11 was used to justify the creation of the surveillance age, the near-total surrender of individual privacy and the right to not be detained without charge.
Will Boris Johnson, Donald Trump et al. (and it would be the same if Corbyn, Sanders or Clinton were in charge) really give all their powers back when COVID-19 dies down? They may not be as explicitly dictatorial as Viktor Orbán or Jair Bolsonaro, but after giving anyone this much power without oversight, we will have to be extremely vigilant to stop little remnants of these rules quietly being left on the books, whether for these governments or future ones to take advantage of.
In the UK, we’ve already seen the police use drones to surveil people walking in isolated beauty spots, crack down on shops selling ‘non-essential’ items (‘non-essential’ is not part of any passed law) and manhandle a shopkeeper for keeping his vaping business open, despite him taking numerous precautions. This is a continuation of a slow but noticeable push by certain parts of the police in recent years into policing what they believe to be right regardless of whether it is within their remit.
Over the weekend in the UK, one of my local parks, Brockwell, was closed due to the local council and police claiming that of its 3,000 visitors the prior Saturday, many were in large groups or sunbathing. It is unclear how the council came by this questionable figure. I visited the park at a peak time (3-4pm) and saw no evidence of large groups or people sunbathing en-masse. Twitter photos taken at a similar time to my visit corroborate this. Releasing this figure is a highly questionable strategy, not only for its seeming dishonesty but for being highly divisive at a time when a need for unity and morale-raising could not be higher.
The council's statement and the subsequent threat by politicians to permanently close all public green spaces reflects a trend during this crisis among authorities at all levels to not only overreach what powers they have, but aggressively enforce the letter of the law at the vital cost of its spirit. It is correct that when dealing with a highly infectious, presently incurable disease, unnecessary outdoor excursions should be discouraged. It's also true that there were a small number of sunbathers at Brockwell Park last Saturday, but all well spaced and posing no threat to anyone.
While sunbathing is unnecessary, when people are being as cautious and responsible as is rightly expected of them, sticking to the principle of separation even if performing a questionable activity, this is a case when it is right to have the rule, but also be cautious in enforcing it. Nobody is at risk from people driving to beauty spots or well-spaced sunbathers. Unless the number of people doing so becomes critical - and the rule is there to discourage that from happening - a more conscientious view should be taken to let them be. As Jean-Luc Picard once said: "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
That entire countries have willingly locked themselves indoors is an enormous credit to their people. To be so draconian in cracking down on ill-advised but harmless activities, where people are obeying the essential 2m spacing rule, shows the police to be inflexible, cruel and unwilling to meet the public's considerable efforts halfway, regardless of the cost to morale or mental health. Fortunately, it must be said this is not exclusively the case: here is an example of a UK police force adopting a respectful, collaborative tone.
Nothing simply returns ‘to normal’. Things will change as a result of this and the society we emerge into will be very different from the one at the beginning of the year. To give up virtually every foundational principle of a free society and risk the collapse of the economy at such speed and based on limited and potentially incorrect data, seems an enormous medium-to-long term risk as things stand right now. A crisis is not a time to abandon all one's values: it is the time when we are tested to see strongly we are willing to stand up for them. It feels as though a dangerous precedent is being set here and the potential costs are not being discussed or taken nearly as seriously as they should be.
In the space of a few weeks, we’ve seen every free nation around the world bar one* become a de facto police state, placing entire populations under effective house arrest. As I said, there are many reasons why restricting people’s liberty in this case is not only justified, but essential – having a vaccine against flu but not COVID-19 is a big part of it. However, I have severe reservations about how quickly our fundamental liberties have been taken away based on highly incomplete data.
(For those wondering, the ‘bar one’ is Sweden, which is taking a more light-touch approach to limiting the COVID-19 spread. There are reasons why their approach might be viable there and not in other countries - a larger number of single-generation households, for instance - but it will interesting to see how it fares for them and whether they have to eventually adopt the most widespread authoritarian approach.)
The Precautionary Principle – that action against a potential disaster should not be delayed until only after a complete body of scientific evidence is formed – is grounded in an essential truth (if we waited for a full picture on COVID-19 before doing anything and it turned out as deadly as the worst estimates, millions of lives could be lost) but also extremely vulnerable to abuse and overreaction.
Imperial College, whose modelling is being used as the basis for the social crackdown, was also behind the foot-and-mouth outbreak modelling which led to the slaughter of millions of farm animals and cost the country billions. Imperial might be correct this time – although their estimates have already been massively downgraded – but their modelling is by no means perfect.
COVID-19 is, I reiterate, to be taken seriously and taking no action could lead to a large number of preventable deaths, but we also should be asking what sort of society those people will be surviving into, and how many lives will be lost through poverty, depression and suicide if actions today lead to not only a massive financial depression, collapse in employment, businesses and available jobs, but also a State which has had a taste of near-absolute power. The tragedy of 9/11 was used to justify the creation of the surveillance age, the near-total surrender of individual privacy and the right to not be detained without charge.
Will Boris Johnson, Donald Trump et al. (and it would be the same if Corbyn, Sanders or Clinton were in charge) really give all their powers back when COVID-19 dies down? They may not be as explicitly dictatorial as Viktor Orbán or Jair Bolsonaro, but after giving anyone this much power without oversight, we will have to be extremely vigilant to stop little remnants of these rules quietly being left on the books, whether for these governments or future ones to take advantage of.
In the UK, we’ve already seen the police use drones to surveil people walking in isolated beauty spots, crack down on shops selling ‘non-essential’ items (‘non-essential’ is not part of any passed law) and manhandle a shopkeeper for keeping his vaping business open, despite him taking numerous precautions. This is a continuation of a slow but noticeable push by certain parts of the police in recent years into policing what they believe to be right regardless of whether it is within their remit.
Over the weekend in the UK, one of my local parks, Brockwell, was closed due to the local council and police claiming that of its 3,000 visitors the prior Saturday, many were in large groups or sunbathing. It is unclear how the council came by this questionable figure. I visited the park at a peak time (3-4pm) and saw no evidence of large groups or people sunbathing en-masse. Twitter photos taken at a similar time to my visit corroborate this. Releasing this figure is a highly questionable strategy, not only for its seeming dishonesty but for being highly divisive at a time when a need for unity and morale-raising could not be higher.
The council's statement and the subsequent threat by politicians to permanently close all public green spaces reflects a trend during this crisis among authorities at all levels to not only overreach what powers they have, but aggressively enforce the letter of the law at the vital cost of its spirit. It is correct that when dealing with a highly infectious, presently incurable disease, unnecessary outdoor excursions should be discouraged. It's also true that there were a small number of sunbathers at Brockwell Park last Saturday, but all well spaced and posing no threat to anyone.
While sunbathing is unnecessary, when people are being as cautious and responsible as is rightly expected of them, sticking to the principle of separation even if performing a questionable activity, this is a case when it is right to have the rule, but also be cautious in enforcing it. Nobody is at risk from people driving to beauty spots or well-spaced sunbathers. Unless the number of people doing so becomes critical - and the rule is there to discourage that from happening - a more conscientious view should be taken to let them be. As Jean-Luc Picard once said: "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
That entire countries have willingly locked themselves indoors is an enormous credit to their people. To be so draconian in cracking down on ill-advised but harmless activities, where people are obeying the essential 2m spacing rule, shows the police to be inflexible, cruel and unwilling to meet the public's considerable efforts halfway, regardless of the cost to morale or mental health. Fortunately, it must be said this is not exclusively the case: here is an example of a UK police force adopting a respectful, collaborative tone.
Nothing simply returns ‘to normal’. Things will change as a result of this and the society we emerge into will be very different from the one at the beginning of the year. To give up virtually every foundational principle of a free society and risk the collapse of the economy at such speed and based on limited and potentially incorrect data, seems an enormous medium-to-long term risk as things stand right now. A crisis is not a time to abandon all one's values: it is the time when we are tested to see strongly we are willing to stand up for them. It feels as though a dangerous precedent is being set here and the potential costs are not being discussed or taken nearly as seriously as they should be.
OTHER ARTICLES YOU MAY ENJOY
