by Alexis FitzGerald
I consider myself to be left-wing on virtually every political topic: I am a socially-liberal social democrat who believes in a strong social safety net, high-quality public healthcare for all, robust environmental protections (including shifting to renewable energy sources immediately and protecting half of the globe for nature), restorative justice, legal abortion and reducing inequality and corporate influence over politics. I despise Donald Trump and believe Brexit was a huge mistake. I am firstly presenting my political biases in order to dispel the caricature that has emerged of lockdown sceptics as being all right-wing, Trumpian Brexiteers. I think this labelling has been very unfortunate and misguided, as I too believe that the lockdown policy in response to Covid-19 has been an utter and complete disaster, and that most of the left have gotten this issue completely wrong. I will argue that the position of the lockdown sceptic really should be a more naturally left-wing cause to adopt, and those on the left should not be distracted by the reflexive partisan politics and virtue signalling that has taken over so much of the debate around lockdowns.
The left should be interested in protecting working class and marginalised people and shielding them from economic hardship and exploitation, first and foremost. However, by many reasonable projections, these lockdown policies are delivering us into the worst economic depression in world history, and this will certainly negatively affect working class and marginalised people more than anyone else. Small businesses are being swallowed up by the thousands by large multinational corporations like Amazon (very much like a novel virus, sweeping through our populations and killing off the weakest among us), and automation has now taken on a whole new impetus for these companies. There will be few jobs left to return to for those furloughed by this lockdown, and there will be no resources to invest in worthy left-wing causes such as better public healthcare and vaccines, renewable energy systems, public transport, universal basic income, upskilling of the workforce, etc. We have developed complete tunnel vision on one cause of death, and forgotten or relegated all of the other causes of human death and suffering. We are now casually discussing the possibility of new famines in Africa and India and of economic bailouts three times the size of the 2008 economic crash, after just one month of lockdown. These outcomes are by no means guaranteed by the appearance of Covid-19 itself. This is the shocking result of lockdown policy, and a stark reminder of how disastrous public policy can be in the wrong hands. The economy is not just some toy for the ultra-rich (although aspects of it can be, e.g. stock markets), it is also crucial to the continued prosperity and flourishing of average working families. Therefore, the flippant dismissal of economic concerns by some on the left is a massive mistake, the consequences of which will be suffered for generations, and the weight of which will fall particularly on the shoulders of young people like myself. This has never been about life versus money, it has always been about life versus life.
In our current media climate it is not often mentioned that national and international lockdowns in response to a virus outbreak are completely unprecedented in world history, and that this is for good reason. Not even in war time did Western governments impose such severe restrictions on citizens’ personal liberties (churches and schools largely stayed open in the United Kingdom during World War II). And it is not just our liberty that we are losing, but our livelihoods and our young people’s futures. It will be young people and struggling working-class families who will bear the burden of the economic aftermath of this policy and who will have to pay back these forced Covid-19 subsidy loans that are being thrust upon us after being forced out of work by government fiat, through economic depression and inevitable austerity over many years. Multi-billion dollar socialism for mismanaged corporations and banks will certainly continue unabated, and ordinary people will be made to foot the bill once again, just as we did in 2008. If we continue with varying levels of lockdown until the end of the summer (and perhaps beyond), we are guaranteed to have destroyed generations of human potential. We on the left should have seen this coming months ago, and we should actively be resisting the lockdowns which caused it.
Given that national lockdowns have never before been attempted and are so extreme in nature, the onus falls upon governments implementing them to provide overwhelming and inarguable evidence and data to justify this policy and to prove its efficacy beyond any reasonable doubt. However, it is clear that governments and public health officials have completely failed us in this regard. You just have to take a look at the Worldometers data for Covid-19 that anyone can access in order to make comparisons between different countries to see how our governments and public health officials have failed. However, there are other scientists and scholars presenting this with more sophisticated statistical analyses which I highly recommend reading, such as Wilfred Reilly’s recent articles on the topic. For example, Sweden had 2,763 infections per million, and 343 deaths per million as of 12th May 2020. These statistics are quite similar to my own country, the Republic of Ireland, with a much higher 4,739 infections per million and a similar 303 deaths per million, also as of 12th May; yet Ireland has been in full lockdown for some seven weeks at this point – a fellow European country with a similar population, similarly dense cities, similar age profiles in the population and similar sizes and densities of nursing homes. Sweden never introduced a national lockdown, but rather maintained strong recommended (rather than government-mandated) social distancing measures while attempting to shield the most vulnerable. Sweden kept its economy open and kept its populace as calm and rationally-informed as possible in the face of this crisis, and has recently been praised by the World Health Organisation for their efforts in tackling the crisis in a long-term sustainable fashion. Sweden also has a much lower death rate than Belgium, Spain, Italy, UK, etc. Those who like to point out that other Scandinavian countries have lower deaths per million seem to forget that Sweden is simply further along the infection curve than these neighbouring countries, and thus that they have not saved any lives but rather delayed the death sentences of those vulnerable people in their populations by a mere few weeks or months – a delaying strategy which could be considered to be socially destructive in itself. And all the while, detractors conveniently forget all those European countries that have fared the same or much worse than Sweden according to the numbers.
This is replicated virtually everywhere when you compare countries or US states in lockdown to those non-lockdown, social-distancing countries or US states such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc. Therefore, social distancing appears to be doing almost all of the work for us in terms of controlling the spread of the virus. These are live experiments that we are witnessing before our eyes which show us that lockdown is not even working well in terms of our public health, and for some bizarre reason governments and their health advisors are completely ignoring them and not learning any lessons from them. Every week of lockdown that goes by is digging us further into a deep hole of economic turmoil which will take us years to get out of. The evidence for the efficacy of lockdowns is simply not forthcoming, and therefore the policy is utterly unjustified – however much we may imagine it to be. Lockdowns were first instituted when we had no hard evidence to hand, only models (which have since turned out to be wildly out of sync with reality), and the policy has not been re-evaluated in any serious scientific way since this time.
For some strange reason, many people (particularly on the left) appear to want the Swedish model to fail, and the bizarrely-negative media coverage they receive should simply be ignored. In normal times, Sweden is held up as a model country on the left for virtually everything from health care to prisons to immigration policies. Suddenly, they are now viewed as the pariah of the world, being run by semi-fascistic leaders who should be (as one Twitter user noted) “carted off to the Hague” – presumably for crimes against humanity. This level of irrational ire could only be caused by those who are frustrated that the Swedes have not panicked and have instead taken a smart, long-term, balanced, middle-ground approach and have thus succeeded by the numbers while respecting their citizens’ basic liberties and livelihoods, which are also essential to living a decent life. And I really think we should be doing the same.
Furthermore, the lockdowns are almost certainly bad for our public health. Covid-19 is not by any means the only thing that kills people. Many people are now too scared to go to hospitals to get important treatments, tests and surgeries that are certainly losing us lives to undiagnosed cancers, heart issues, etc. Where our healthcare systems cannot cope with Covid-19, we should immediately have funded and expanded our capacity (e.g. with temporary hospitals) rather than locking down society. Our mental health problems, stress, addiction and abuse levels are increasing. Furthermore, it is a well-known sociological phenomenon that suicides – particularly amongst men – increase when a recession puts them out of work for extended periods of time. And our immune systems are weakening. We are a social primate, and our immune systems evolved over millennia to be kept strong by continual exposure to microbes via social contact and being outdoors, thus developing in us an immunity from many different diseases. Therefore, being inside our homes for weeks or months, away from other people and dousing every surface with bleach and sanitiser is almost certainly detrimental in the long term for our immune systems. There are guaranteed to be many novel microbes and diseases other than Covid-19 to which we need to develop an immunity as a species through continued social contact. When lockdowns are finally released, we may see a surge of new infections of various kinds due to this weakening of our immune systems. Recently we have seen that 66% of new Covid-19 cases in New York are of people who have been locked down for weeks, according to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. This indicates that either the virus is much more widespread in New York than was previously thought, and/or that the weeks of lockdown have significantly weakened locked-down New Yorkers’ immune systems, making them much more vulnerable to the virus – and other illnesses.
Furthermore, if the economic collapse continues, we may expect new famines in Africa and India that could threaten many tens to hundreds of thousands of lives, if not more. And this is not to mention the fact that we are losing vast sums of tax money and borrowing power every day by paying large proportions of our national populaces to stay home. This is money that we could be investing in our public health care systems in order to increase capacity, improve treatments and facilities, fund new government vaccines and antibiotic development programmes, etc. So it is very likely that with all these added “lockdown deaths” and the catastrophic loss of public money to spend on health care and vaccines, we are producing a significant net loss of life which will by far outweigh any lives that one might claim to have been saved by the lockdowns (which is a questionable claim at best, as we have seen). Surely it cannot now be the case that Covid-19 deaths are the only deaths that matter any more? Looking at all causes of death and suffering in this world together, an intelligent person should conclude that lockdowns are definitively a net-negative policy for our society and for the globe.
One might think that – at the very least – this lockdown experience would have dramatically improved our sense of national societal solidarity, reflecting the tired and facile comparisons with war time conditions. But even this has been dealt a serious blow by the lockdowns. We are now being primed by our governments, media and public health officials to behave like misanthropic, obsessive-compulsive hypochondriacs who are to regard any other person as a potential viral infestation to be avoided at all costs. Just picture the viral force-field that surrounds people in public health infographics on social distancing. The most basic activities of a social primate like us are now considered to be forms of contagion-ridden, death-spreading evil. I must point out that no such moralising inanity around viruses is entertained when it comes to influenza, which spreads through social contact and kills many tens of thousands worldwide every year. This is because contagion is usually understood to be an inescapable part of life as a social primate and not something one can feasibly control beyond a reasonable degree, such as by staying at home (and/or wearing a mask) when one feels sick, and by maintaining basic hygiene. Things other than life itself are indeed valuable to us – including social contact – and we often take minor risks with our lives for this very reason. Living one’s life is simply inherently risky.
I wish I could say this were hyperbole, but unfortunately I cannot. Barriers that are usually lowered between citizens in times of collective crisis are in fact being raised higher, both physically and emotionally. The invented two-metre distance must be maintained at all times, and in my experience people don’t smile at, or talk to each other lest they are breached by the viral force-field around each human infestation. International solidarity is also waning. We are being told to consider anyone arriving from abroad as a potential disease vector who must lock themselves away for two weeks, despite the obvious logical interjection that you are just as likely to get Covid-19 from your local supermarket (in virtually every major country in the world now) as you are from someone arriving from Brazil or South Africa or Nigeria or India or Turkey – with the possible exceptions of those two global hotspots, New York and northern Italy. A recent protest occurred in late April 2020 at a port in Dingle, Co. Kerry, in the south-west of Ireland, by Irish fishermen who were outraged that a boat originating from Spain would arrive on our shores bringing us our seafood dinner, lest they also bring us their contagion. So to add insult to injury, the lockdown measures have been disconcertingly well designed to accentuate the worst misanthropic aspects of our character, undermining our national and international solidarity and exacerbating base xenophobia.
We have to start thinking much more reasonably, rationally and maturely about the death rate from Covid-19 and the kinds of risk levels that different people and age groups experience. The death rate for the virus is simply far lower than we originally believed it to be at the beginning of the crisis. Randomised serology testing studies carried out in multiple countries in Europe and in the US have shown that from c.4–15% (and even 30% in some cases, depending on the study) of our national populations in Europe and the US either have Covid-19 or have had it recently. And it is becoming increasingly apparent that the virus has been around for quite a bit longer than we previously believed: France recently reported a confirmed case of Covid-19 from December 2019. Any honest analysis of the statistics around this virus (rather than self-serving and scaremongering anecdotes about the tiny number of younger people who have died from this disease) will show that it is an exceptionally ageist one. If you are under 65 and without any major pre-existing conditions (such as obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.), your chances of dying from Covid-19 are extremely slim; and for people under 30, your chances are infinitesimally so. If nursing homes had been adequately protected from Covid-19 in Ireland, our death rate would be one third of its current rate. Therefore, keeping the entire work-force and all schoolchildren – children are almost entirely immune to this virus – locked up at home is a completely crazy strategy to adopt. As Lord Sumption has pointed out, we are all perfectly capable of assessing our own personal levels of risk based on our age, health, who we live with, etc. and of adjusting the way we live our life accordingly. Some may want to keep working from home or staying isolated or cocooned, while some vulnerable people may want to take a risk with their own lives by ending their isolation because they value things other than life itself, such as being able to spend time with their loved ones. We don’t need an incessantly-intrusive nanny state telling us which friends we can and cannot meet, when and where we can go outside, whether or not we are allowed to exchange goods and services between consenting parties, etc. This sense of fundamental personal liberty – which I had hoped would be strong on the left – appears to be depressingly absent, and in its place there exists a kind of docile supinity and subservience to state power and lab coats. All but forgotten is Benjamin Franklin’s stark warning to us from 260 years ago, that “[t]hose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. This is more relevant than ever today. Some governments are using this lockdown as an excuse to undermine democratic institutions and norms, and in some countries even to seize full dictatorial-decree powers (such as Viktor Orban’s government in Hungary), while others are using it as an opportunity to loosen environmental protections (such as in Slovenia).
Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not we prolong the lockdown is not a scientific or public health decision. It is a political, public-policy and economic decision. Public health science can – and should – inform these decisions, but they are ultimately political ones, and politicians hiding with cowardice behind public health officials will eventually be seen for what they are. Now more than ever, we need politicians who are willing to show leadership and a steady, rational hand in a crisis – something that has been noticeably absent throughout this period.
Some like to claim that all of these negative outcomes would have happened naturally in any case because of the virus itself, but this could not be further from the truth. Lockdown policy, combined with panic-inducing, clickbait-oriented and scaremongering media coverage, has caused much of the damage we are experiencing. This is a government- and media-induced insult to add to the injury of the virus itself. My biggest fear is that governments and citizens will continue to defend the lockdown policy (operating on a kind of sunk costs fallacy) and will never realise or admit how much damage it has done (ascribing all the damage to the virus rather than to the lockdown policies), and will then repeat this policy ad infinitum every time a new outbreak of Covid-19 or some other contagion occurs. We simply cannot survive as a civilisation in this way. Governments should step forward and admit honestly that the lockdown policy was a mistake, and that they were simply acting as best they could without available evidence at the time – evidence which, increasingly, we have at our finger-tips. These governments should shift immediately to a Swedish or similar model – for instance with a policy of mandatory mask-wearing in public or crowded spaces – and those of us on the left (as well as those in the centre who are still supporting the lockdowns) need to realise this necessity. At the very least, even if we do not have the wisdom and rational forethought at this time to end these lockdowns as soon as is humanly possible, then I sincerely hope that we will regain enough of our collective rational minds in the coming months in order to realise how destructive these lockdown policies have been, and to make certain that we never again repeat this strategy. Three similarly-sized pandemics were experienced by humanity during the 20th century, and we will continue to face this challenge in the future. Lockdowns were never implemented then. They were wise to avoid it, and we would be wise to learn from them.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The caricature of those opposed to Lockdown as uncaring fascists was the greatest coup of this whole process. The left, via useful idiots like Jones and Toynbee, fell for it, hook line and sinker. And, because the left has stopped debating in favour of deplatforming, no one dared challenge what the Guardian was telling them.
I forgot to mention the virus! I have no fear of catching it, but don’t object to the lockdown, if nothing else it slows the destruction of Earth if hominids are kept at home and can’t pollute as much as norma;. The roads are almost clear across the country, wildlife are benefiting massively – just think of how many fewers road kills there are – and many have benefited from the release fro the rat race sand time to take stock and think whether they want to keep manically slogging away to get rich, on a conveyer belt to a heart attack. Many love working from home, many others have started businesses of their own, most seem to be newly concerned about climate change and whether a constant drive to get more at a cost to the environment is really what they want to leave to their grandchildren.
My take on it is that all this objecting to lockdown is a juvenile ‘shan’t’ from pampered narcissists who don’t want to be told anything, who think they already know everything. Perhaps if their parents had said no to them more they would be more mature now, with the self discipline… Read more »
“if nothing else it slows the destruction of Earth if hominids are kept at home and can’t pollute as much as normal” – this is the thought process of an authoritarian misanthrope. You need to do some reading. Read The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch, More From Less by Andrew Macafee, Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker, Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger, etc. You are wrong on the facts unfortunately. Although it is intuitively convincing to think humans are just an evil plague on the Earth (I used to believe this when I was younger), the facts and data don’t show this to be case, and there is no physical or logical reason why we shouldn’t be able to have a thriving, galaxy-exploring humanity living alongside a thriving natural world. As Deutsch has pointed out, in physics terms, matter/resources is not the limiting factor for humanity (and whatever we want to achieve, exploring galaxies, ending poverty, protecting nature, etc.), it is KNOWLEDGE that is limiting us. All we need to do is generate the universalizable knowledge of how to use our resources better. This worldview you have adopted is clearly clouding your judgement on lockdowns. Yes lockdowns have failed utterly,… Read more »
Why do so many people who consider themselves leftwing find it necessary to state they oppose Brexit? Do you know anything about the EU or are you one of the apolitical ‘liberals’ who simply assume it’s a Coca Cola ad like organisation teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony?
The EU is a stage on the way to a United States of Europe, as first stated in the [US] Marshall Plan after WW2, First a Common Market and then by stealth so the electorates don’t get alarmed to an increasingly federal Europe. In what sense is a mega state left wing or liberal? Have a look at the USA, mega states are always a nightmare for the environment, and rarely leftwing, unless you liked the USSR and think that a good model.
If you are remotely green I suggest you remember the dictum ‘Small is beautiful’, and also educate yourself on the environmental damage the EU’s CAP did to the UK’s environment, and its CFP did to our fisheries.
There always was a leftwing case for leaving the EU, I have been opposed to this creeping megastate from the start, and never expected the UK public to… Read more »
Sadly, I have found that the Left has revealed its true colors on this one. (Although I’ll admit, I may have been missing them prior to this feardemic.) And I’m speaking as a now former Dem (as of May) who’s voted straight party line for 45 years. I believe in most liberal tenets, but not the ones usurped by the new, Woke left.
I want to pick up on this excellent piece by responding to this excerpt:
[quote]International solidarity is also waning. We are being told to consider anyone arriving from abroad as a potential disease vector who must lock themselves away for two weeks, despite the obvious logical interjection that you are just as likely to get Covid-19 from your local supermarket (in virtually every major country in the world now) as you are from someone arriving from Brazil or South Africa or Nigeria or India or Turkey – with the possible exceptions of those two global hotspots, New York and northern Italy. A recent protest occurred in late April 2020 at a port in Dingle, Co. Kerry, in the south-west of Ireland, by Irish fishermen who were outraged that a boat originating from Spain would arrive on our shores bringing us our seafood dinner, lest they also bring us their contagion. So to add insult to injury, the lockdown measures have been disconcertingly well designed to accentuate the worst misanthropic aspects of our character, undermining our national and international solidarity and exacerbating base xenophobia.[/quote]
People on the left end of the political spectrum are concerned about the plight of refugees around… Read more »
Great essay – as a person on the very far left, I have felt the same ever since this episode started. I am a US citizen, but live and work in Ireland, and noticed early on that the average age of death RofI officially published was always over 80. Eventually, this statistic was omitted from the daily updates, a change I found quite interesting. I am very grateful for stumbling upon Lockdown sceptics from a mention in one of the many sceptical articles on OffGuardian. Increasingly over the last four years of the age of Trump I have found myself in the company of supposed ‘right-wing’ opinion and websites because I refused to be taken in by the corporate US Democratic virus of Trump Derangement Syndrome and the Russiagate nonsense. At one point during the panicdemic I thought I had truly lost my mind because I just was not ‘afraid’ of catching it, as the vast majority of my friends and family were. OffGuardian and Lockdown Sceptics were a lifeline, as is this essay. Kudos to this website and Alexis Fitzgerald. They are both very much appreciated by this lefty.
Thank you so, so, so much for this. In addition to the physical isolation, i started worrying i was losing my mind because of the lack of voices on the left when it comes to this issue. It sounds absurd but the lack of those on the left voicing this as artfully as you have has been soul crushingly difficult. Thank you for showing that there are still some that put thought into this complex issue.the dogma has been suffocating.
Totally on the correct!! Seems to me that it simply reduces down to the extraordinary number of stakeholders there are who are completely invested in the catastrophising of Covid. While not all a leftie, and certainly not pro Trump. I’m definitely not to the right of Attila the Hun. Just a regular British middle of the roader!!
Sadly, the economic and personal cost of lockdowns and controls are neither quantified nor discussed in the third world countries. After lockdown, mostly they push the disease down in the economy ladder, with the middle class getting less and less disease and the poorer wage earner getting more of the Covid pie. This is a reality we would live with in the developing societies.
This is an amazing piece of research for anyone interested https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2020/6/28/secondwave?fbclid=IwAR0-vC3JPeEojArYWjOEGN_Tg2EcPb4C7yE5RI3l5ftY140bVlZFiSI1254
A recent Chinese study found 80% of infections came from in the home. There is is research to suggest it’s faecal-oral more than respiratory that is the problem. A case study in 2003 of a SARS outbreak in a housing tower in Hong Kong found that the entire apartment block (over 300 people) became infected via faecal aerosols that spread via defective plumbing from the toilet of the infected person who had had diarrhoea. In relation so SARS-CoV-2 one study was undertaken in 2 wuhan hospitals on infected aerosols. Air tests were taken from various locations in the hospitals. All tests in ICU, CCU, patient treatment rooms, patient halls returned negative for the airoborne virus. The only place where positive results were returned were from tests in the toilet. This suggests faecal-oral (either from contaminated surfaces or infected toilet plumes), so sharing toilets with infected people is likely the worst thing we can do. Have links to studies if anyone wants.
This article was a delight to read. I am also a left liberal person, however this lockdown will in the long run be a disaster for our country, especially given Brexit is also ongoing. People seem so unaware of the fact that when the ‘lockdown’ ends, it will be the working class who foot the bill of the lockdown and also the magic Money tree which has also been discovered by the government. additionally, I believe they are using the lockdown to restrict freedoms and liberties in this country drastically. they will use the reasoning of necessity to implement draconian rules. the new mask rule which is coming in in a few days seems to baffle me- masks are now suddenly essential after being in 4 months of lockdown? Most left thinking individuals do view the corona virus through a narrow lens, without considering the long term effects which is scary. I WANT TO work, I NEED to work, I NEED to put food on the table.
Does anyone here read Arthur Bough’s blog, and specifically his three-part series on how the left should have responded to Covid-19?
I also can’t help drawing parallels between lockdown mania among the left and opposition to nuclear power. While there may well have been other drivers behind leftist anti-nuclearism (chiefly the role of fossil fuel interests: either domestic ones like the NUM or foreign ones like the Kremlin) I can’t help feeling that the belief that economic catastrophe will benefit the left is also a driver.
This belief is delusional, especially when the economic catastrophe takes the form of a collapse in production rather than injustice in distribution. In these situations, murderous fascism built on “lifeboat ethics” is more likely to be the main beneficiary of the crisis.
Totally agree with the distinction between a ‘collapse in production’ and an’ injustice in distribution’. It would seem pretty obvious that this confusion is inimical to any thinking ‘left’ perspective.
… but, sadly such a basic confusion seems rife amongst those who claim the ‘left’ badge of virtue. Let’s be clear – if your slim grasp of language equates the term ‘economy’ with ‘neoliberal capitalist profiteering’, its hardly surprising that the latter will walk all over your face in any political conflict.
As to political definitions, the Covid-19 death-porn scam has clearly illusrated the inadequacy of the ‘left-right’ dimension as a sole descriptor, as the distinctions have clearly been on the ‘libertarian-authoritarian’ axis (apart from the third dimension of ‘stupidity’ 🙂 )
I agree that the libertarian-authoritarian axis is very important, and is more so than ever today. But I think economically right-leaning (and often Trump-supporting, populist) people often conveniently try to make us forget that there is still a very clear and important economic policy divide between traditional left and right that has not gone away, and probably never will. I want the left-leaning, anti-woke, libertarian ‘populists’ to finally get their act together and start winning.
I appreciate this perspective. I am also on the left and initially bought into the idea of lockdown, but then started reading and consuming the data and scientific literature myself and realized what a horrible mistake this has been. I also am quite shocked by the behavior of lots of individuals on the left who take it upon themselves to lecture people on neighborhood facebook groups, or regional groups on Reddit, about staying home and not going out. Additionally, living in the United States I have seen something I never thought I would see, which is people reporting businesses and their neighbors to the public health authorities for perceived acts of noncompliance with undemocratic public heath diktats and taking pride in doing so. It disturbs me.
People on the left, particularly upper middle class white liberals, are obsessed with the idea of ZERO – zero new infections, zero cases, zero deaths. The sooner we accept that is not possible, the sooner we’ll be able to learn to deal and live with COVID-19 more effectively.
Absolutely agreed Michael, thanks for the message!
Firstly, I want to say that many of the points the author makes are valid concerns forecasting the repercussions of the Covid-19 epidemic. When the author talks about the Left’s duty in- “protecting working class and marginalised people and shielding them from economic hardship and exploitation” –I couldn’t agree with this more. However, I am a little sceptical of the logic of this article, which seems to imply that the onus of the Left should be to criticise Lockdown without criticising the things around it.
There is a cause for real concern regarding many of the points that the author makes, including:
“Small businesses are being swallowed up by the thousands by large multinational corporations like Amazon” and the “Few jobs left to return to for those furloughed by this lockdown, and there will be no resources to invest in worthy left-wing causes such as better public healthcare and vaccines, renewable energy systems, public transport, universal basic income, up-skilling of the workforce, etc.”
I would argue that while many of these positions are already concerns of the Left. The ways that the author presents the relationship between lockdown policy, economic fallout and blame are often underpinned by ‘gut feeling’ conclusions that… Read more »
I think much of what you said in response is wrong and misguided, but I will just reply with a few points below:
the comparison with WW2 was to show that even in the most extreme period in recent history, no such extreme limits (as e.g. closing schools and churches) were imposed upon entire national populations, particularly in western countries. It is get across how unprecedented the current restrictions are.
You want to focus on criticising government actions because you think that government action/inaction was the game changer in different countries’ outcomes. But that is not necessarily the case at all. See the recent interview with the Norwegian head of health who said (also admitting that the lockdown, and particularly the closing of schools, in Norway was an over-reaction), government action may have changed little with regard to virus spread and death rates globally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ewxCPtw7w In essence, what countries like New Zealand and Australia or UK or Sweden etc. did or didn’t do, probably had little or no impact on the natural course of the virus through their populations, we have a fantasy of being able to control this phenomenon, that’s not to say all diseases are uncontrollable,… Read more »
I’d probably put myself on the libertarian centre right, if anywhere. Excellent article, and excellent reply to one of the very people who make me uneasy these days. An anecdotal confirmation of the costs of lockdown: my next door neighbour told us sadly the other day that while he has lost no-one close to covid-19, he has lost five friends to suicide during lockdown.
Alexis FitzGerald wrote:
The saddest thing about this whole thing is that people’s sacrifices (as you alluded to) have indeed been largely in vain. It is the worst thing about this, and ultimately why people find it so hard to reckon with the fact that lockdowns were a mistake.
Isn’t the idea of “we sacrificed so much we shouldn’t stop now” the same thing politicians say to justify continuing wars and military adventures whenever people suggest the government stop doing such destructive things?
How do you feel now we know more? For example Sweden, how do you explain that the lockdown has protected people when all countries around the world have similar outcomes and Swedens infection rate is now lower than lockdown countries?
Even though we are aware of the damage and we know that this virus is not as dangerous as first thought, we are now expecting to be locked down again. Are you still going to argue the virus is more dangerous than the policies to control it?
It would be interesting to know if you’ve woken up yet?
Thank goodness somebody on the left has dared to say what my gut and my head have been wanting to say since lockdown, but virtue-signalling from my comrades on the left has made this a risky manoeuvre.
Sometime in March or April I googled “liberals against lockdown” and found nothing. I continue to be mystified and frustrated by the left’s lockstep endorsement of lockdowns. It has alienated me from the left wing.
The author does something very strange, though. At the start he characterises Brexit as a naturally ‘right wing’ phenomenon. In doing so, he makes exactly the same mistake as those who assume that lockdown is ‘left wing’.
In fact, Brexit only became assumed to be ‘right wing’ in the run-up to the 2016 referendum, and this was primarily to do with people choosing who they were prepared to ‘share a platform’ with. Most left wingers couldn’t imagine sharing a platform with Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees Mogg etc., so the issue polarised into ‘left’ and ‘right’ at that point.
In fact, we can see left-winger Peter Shore in 1975 opposing Britain’s entry into the EEC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoO6146qM5g
And as late as 2015, left wingers such as Owen Jones and George Monbiot were making the case for Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece-eurosceptic
A brilliant essay, I am also a confirmed lefty if of the older variety. Unfortunately your last paragraph though spoiled it – there is absolutely no evidence that wearing masks prevents the spread of viruses
There is a view that the libertarian/authoritarian axis is more important than left/right -see here
It’s hard to understand when the Guardian et al became authoritarian – and how this associates with the identification with (certain types of) victims..
Nice colours but means nothing. All I can see is I’m purple. So?
I agree with all but two points. Humans are the carriers si the virus dies rather quickly on surfaces. Therefore, an infected human coming into your country is more dangerous than store inventory which sits usually long enough in transit to have any virus die off. Also, I disagree with the new cases in New York statement, ones immune system would not fall apart that quickly making one more susceptible to covid-19. Is the virus more wide spread than originally thought, probably, if you are asymptotic why would you get tested? I agree with Sweden. Save the old and immune compromised by keeping them isolated. Do not allow positive cases near them. Eventually it will pass through the population and we will become immune.
I’m inclined to agree with your view of the immune system, but today there is new research published which suggests that vitamin D is a major player in preventing people from catching Covid-19. It could explain the prevalence in BAME communities, and also the findings in New York, where people who have been staying at home are now making up more than 60% of new cases.
Thank you
Hi Alex, my name is Liz Wheeler. I host the show “Tipping Point” on One America News Network. I’d love to have you as a guest on my show to discuss this piece your wrote – it’s fabulous! Send me an email at the address provided. Thank you!
Finally someone on the left is making sense. We have been saying this for several weeks now. Good for you, but you are too late. As far as I see, the only media who’s saying this is Fox and sometimes WSJ. MSM is so blindsided by Trump impeachment, that they don’t even understand they are the one who failed. I blamed also local NY reporters, who have no common sense that once outbreak occurs in China, it can come to NY the next day. They are completely worthless and I now do not watch CBS NY any more. Right now, the left is in completely losing position as Trump is the one who’s fighting for small business.
Well and impressively said and from a young one at that. This alone is hope for my children and grandchildren! Thank you!!!
This is helpful. One statistic to add. In California, we see the stars by county. Notably, the number of Confirmed cases correlates directly to the number of tests administered. Either we do far more testing in counties with many cases, or the more we test the higher number of confirmed cases we find.
This could suggest that the anti-body tests which suggest far more people are already infected are roughly accurate.
Joe, thanks for sending this. I like his arguments against the lockdowns and have Beene steadily heading that way myself.
If it weren’t so prevalent and so dangerous, I’d find his naïveté about the left to be almost cute. But the fact is, he has more in common policy wise with Donald Trump, or me, for that matter, than he does with Nancy Pelosi.
The left does not care about people. They care only about power and control.
The lockdowns are about stealing the next election.
The real left is not Nancy Pelosi – these people are imposters
So much here makes sense. But there is one point I would query. You suggest that vulnerable people can make their own decisions about the level of their exposure to the virus, and in some cases that’s true. But there are many vulnerable people in the mainstream workforce who don’t have the economic choice to self-isolate, and even in lockdown we are seeing a prevalence of deaths in certain sections of the population. People of all ages have underlying health conditions, and there still hasn’t been a satisfactory explanation for the number of deaths in the BAME population, so the risk to people in that group is currently unmeasurable. Is it possible to devise a social security system based upon self-assessment of risk?
I have two comments. The data from Kerala India shows that a society needs along term strategy based on ‘benefits for the people’. The infrastructure in Kerala included both health clinics and schools in every village plus a minister of health who foresaw the pandemic and up-scaled the infrastructure so that the policy of test, trace, isolate and then crucially support has seen wonderful curtailment of the pandemic.
Secondly, a national approach may be following the principle of you are either for me or against me. It is not a black or white issue. The UK found itself after 10 years of austerity very, very poorly prepared for a national emergency. Lock down in Wales, smaller cities and towns was probably an inappropriate action but only IF a combination of social distancing and test, trace, isolate and then adequately support the isolation. London on the other hand is almost impossible to keep functioning al la Stockholm because of the larger population and critical dependence in the mass transport system, so social distancing is not feasible. So I cannot put forward an alternative to lockdown for London even if the policy for the elderly and vulnerable were ‘stay at home’ and… Read more »
Clapping, cheering, crying. I am you. All of this is so true. Also, lockdown never would have happened pre-social media. I despair for my children. What if a REAL pandemic happens? I hate how sceptics are seen as fringe-y. I can barely read my dear friends’ posts anymore. Thank you!!!
This is a real pandemic!
I think Laura means one that kills more than 1% of those that get infected