May 13, 2020 - 7:00am
Stay alert! Sounds exciting, doesn’t it? A definite hint of derring-do.
Real life, though, is far from adventurous. Forget ‘stay alert’, for most of us it’s still ‘stay at home’.
Lockdown may have loosened, but not in a fun way. More of us can go to work now. We can all take as much outdoor exercise as we like. I haven’t seen the guidance on eating dust, but I dare say it’s off the ration. Seeing friends and family, however, remains heavily restricted.
We think of ourselves as a liberty-loving nation, but seven weeks in and we’re still extraordinarily compliant. The protests we’ve seen in America have not been echoed here. Strangest of all, we’ve had remarkably little dissent from the UK’s small, but normally energetic, band of libertarian wonks.
With the economy crushed beneath state controls like we’ve never seen, where are the howls of rage from the free marketeers? The more thoughtful libertarians realised early on that Covid-19 was to be taken seriously. “This time the warnings are not overdone” warned Matt Ridley back in March. Sam Bowman, senior fellow at Adam Smith Institute, was an early advocate of massive state intervention to prop-up the economy during lockdown. They had counterparts in America, like the economist Tyler Cowen, who made the case for special measures in these exceptional circumstances.
However, there’s a very different kind of libertarian, one whose reaction to all of this is more visceral than rational — driven by outrage that law-abiding citizens should find themselves under effective house arrest.
Some of these individuals wouldn’t call themselves libertarians at all — and would see the “ancient liberties” they defend as being rooted in tradition not modernity. Others are more orthodox in their ideology, but still populist in style.
In any case, it is from these types that we see most of the outspoken opposition to lockdown. Examples include Toby Young, Peter Hitchens and Laura Perrins.
Of course, like most ideological divides, we’re talking about a spectrum here as opposed to discrete categories. There’s a continuum between the rationalists and the visceralists. Furthermore, thanks to growing scepticism about the epidemiological models driving government policy, the two ends of the spectrum are coming closer together. Gut reaction finds vindication in rational doubt and vice versa.
I should also make it clear that I’m not disparaging the visceralists for their heartfelt anguish. Our reaction to the lockdown should be one of horror, anger and grief. Even, if like me, you consider it to be necessary, we still ought to be appalled by what we’ve had to resort to.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI get really fed up with commentary like this. Claiming that people you don’t agree with are not rational is the oldest propaganda trick in the book.
he he. I noticed that myself. Cheap. And quite obvious.
And itself irrational, to boot.
“I should also make it clear that I’m not disparaging the visceralists for their heartfelt anguish.”
That is the equivalent of the “No offense…” opening to a sentence folk use before going on to insult the person being addressed.
You have equated one side of the argument – your side – with rationality and placed that against the other side of the argument which you characterise as being driven by emotion and thus not rationality.
It seems to me, however, that those viscerally frightened of the virus are the people who argue for the extreme measures that the government is taking. What is more they do so with scant evidence to support those arguments. Nor do they even appeal to the evidence, rather they appeal to lack of evidence and claim it is better to be safe than sorry – this is the same as the might as well believe in God argument, or any other wuju which takes your fancy. It is also and particularly the very definition of an irrational response and it is driven by a visceral fear death and the unknown.
I therefore suspect the author is suffering from another condition, also brought on, no doubt, by anxiety, that of Psychological Projection, a definition of which is given as:
“Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.”
As such I guess, having been insulted, us rationalists, rather than give into the urge to bite back, should instead sympathise with the author and hope that one day, once the anxiety subsides, we can get back to a more reasoned debate and eventually an analysis of what went wrong and how we can avoid the same mistakes next time around.
I’d say that pointing out that: a) lockdown demonstrably makes the virus worse, not better; and b) that it actively promotes economic collapse, which in turn will destroy the very NHS it’s supposed to save, is really pretty bloody rational, thank you very much.
But was the lockdown necessary, or was it a massive overreaction?
It was necessary from a political perspective, because the government would not have survived if there had been just one picture of a dead body in a hospital corridor; but it was probably unnecessary for epidemiological reasons.
However, this pandemic has been politicised to an extent never known before. The enemies of Boris Johnson, the anti-capitalists and the EU fanatics have created a narrative in which an uncaring administration is determined to send thousands of helpless citizens to their deaths; meanwhile, the free-market liberals are despairing at a government which is prolonging the lockdown unnecessarily and therefore destroying the economy.
OK, I get it. To be concerned about the mass removal of our rights is a visceral, but not rational reaction.
I find the idea of name calling a very weak substitute to having an actual (rational!) position to state.
But hey-ho, that worked so well with Brexit and Climate why not carry it on with this challenge.
I’m not prepared to contract out my personal sense of responsibility to this or any other government nor am I willing to condone a government strategy for which little scientific evidence exists. Boris Johnson has got himself into a huge political mess by the obscene overreaction to Covid 19 and we, the citizens of this country, are paying the price for his need to avoid the humiliation of admitting how wrong he was and is.
‘Little scientific evidence exists’. That almost makes me piss myself laughing. The truth is of course there’s no amount of evidence you’d be prepared to accept if it required you to reconsider your ideological position in any way.
I’m genuinely curious how many people would have to die for you to decide it’s not an ‘overreaction’. I suspect the answer is again there isn’t a number, as your ideological straight jacket would trump anything.
The people who speak this way don’t remind me of Smith or Mill, they remind me of Mao. Someone who any amount of humanity is be sacrificed so long as heading towards some abstract ideal state in pursuit of some abstract idea.
It is far more “visceral” to have one’s position motivated by fear.
I moved to this country from Germany over 20 years ago as I was impressed in previous years by British trade unions and normal people standing up to Thatcher. I thought this was a liberal country. Where is “the nation of shop keepers” now, defending their livelihood?
Where are the liberal voices? One has to search for them on the internet, on small publications like this, as even the BBC, usually known for unbiased, well researched, asking questions reporting, is just a spokesperson for the misguided policy.
This article is ok as far as it goes, but ends quite abruptly so as to appear to be unfinished.
What it appears we should be focusing on is whether this action taken by our government – without proper parliamentary debate, or even a vote – is actually occurring in a country that is any longer a free country or democracy.
There has for example already now been a successful overturning of the lockdown order in the US, reported in the Guardian:
“Wisconsin supreme court strikes down state’s stay-at-home order”
https://www.theguardian.com…
There is also partially underway a legal challenge via judicial review by businessman Simon Dolan, as to whether this was actually a legal action taken by the government or not, which I also support, but feel that the near total absence of democracy involved in these measures is the larger point.
https://www.crowdjustice.co…
However, let us stick with the legal issue for the moment, and just refer to the 1689 Bill of Rights, which is still of legal effect in England and Wales.
Which for example provides “for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.”
Which has not been in the case it appears during the lockdown.
And that parliamentary scrutiny, amidst extreme and unprecedented measures like these, has been practically eliminated, appears to defy the most fundamental basis of our democracy, especially as there was not even a parliamentary vote upon the lockdown measures.
This failure is rendered even more extremely “out of order”, as this “fight against covid-19” has been framed as a war from the outset, with even in my view the totally crazed forming of a “war cabinet.”
At which point, surely anybody sane feared that the likely more serious outbreak was one of madness in government, not of a respiratory disease.
I’m obviously not going to attempt to gauge the legality of what the government has done here, which no doubt legal experts will be arguing for a long time over, but to simply state the it seems to be a gross denial of what we normally regard as freedom and democracy.
Which for example, under the US Constitution is protected by the First Amendment as rights to freedom of speech, publicly assembly, practice of religion and so on, which probably are the bases of the successful legal actions in the US.
The problem in this country appears to be that as there are no clear constitutional rights, such as unfettered free speech, we are actually in the position that the still more or less freedom of the press, the media, is the only genuine safeguard on our liberty.
And it is this gross failure of the media to hold the government to account, but on the contrary, to more or less gleefully aid and abet him in this mass imprisonment, which has allowed Mr Johnson to tread all over our rights.
As well as of course the almost entirely neutered “official Opposition”, which on the whole has been asking for even more denial of human rights than Mr Johnson!
This seems to have left us with the unprecedented situation of a media and political class which is more or less in cahoots in taking away the public’s freedom, based on uncertain scientific advice.
Mr Johnson has abdicated responsibility for our freedom to scientists, he is telling us we are now ruled by the R value, and not by a democratically elected and accountable government any more.
That the media are not contesting this in the most vociferous way, whether or not they agree the lockdown, is appalling, if they still have any genuine concerns for democracy or freedom.
And it is especially concerning as they also are – unlike the usual “wars” such as Iraq or the Falklands, which are fought thousands of miles away – participants on the front line of this latest phoney and unjustified war, and subject to the same restrictions as everyone else.
Or at least in theory.
Because as I have already pointed out in well supported comments at various places, one of the greatest problems is that this “war” and “lockdown” is having vastly disproportionate effects on different groups.
With the main victims who are suffering the very most being the old, vulnerable, the poor – i.e. who cannot even afford to stockpile, and may even lose their homes if they can’t pay rent – those unable to drive, and those without a live-in partner, which are quite often characteristics all commonly affecting the same people.
But not everyone equally.
As those for example without live-in partners, are under this “social distancing” policy being forbidden to satisfy this natural urge for intimacy, which may amount even to merely hugs or close personal contact with friends of either gender, or even just acquaintances one “flirts with”, which almost everybody considers a basic human right and need.
And as a consequence, we find not only has “Mr Lockdown” himself, Professor Ferguson, been flouting his own rules repeatedly, but no doubt numerous others both in and out of the public eye have been also.
Which if millions have already been doing, or are going to be soon doing by some desperate method or other, makes a total nonsense of any effort to impose any effective lockdown.
When what these people are in my view quite legitimately entitled to do, is going to involve not only the avoidance of a two metre gap, but engaging in an activity which is 100% certain to pass on any contagious or airborne virus – this is nothing to do with condom use or lack of it, like HIV, it’s far easier to spread than that.
And of course, we should note in the Professor Ferguson case, his alleged mistress even has a husband and children, she is living with under the therefore so called “lockdown”, to whom any virus would undoubtedly spread.
And we can assume huge numbers, not in the public eye, have long been behaving exactly the same way, once again making the whole idea there has been any serious or effective lockdown into a mockery.
The King Canute level thinking going on (I sighed deeply when I heard Boris Johnson say the actual words “he was going to turn the tide in x weeks”, confirming “the madness of King Boris”, currently at least) is rather like the famous tale of the boy who saves the Dutch seaside town by putting his finger in the d**e.
But we can imagine in real life as the “covid-19 flood” has not got any solid barrier to prevent it, it quickly pours through a “d**e” which in real life is full of holes.
Including the fact, thousands of illegal immigrants (and even official foreign visitors) are arriving here regularly, totally un-monitored, spreading god knows what diseases they may have.
But no proper attempt is made to control our borders and beaches by sea patrols or whatever other means, which again makes a mockery of locking our own citizens up.
I read one news item in the last decade, that said Italy had about 700 boats patrolling its coastline, whereas we had only 3 under Theresa May as Home Secretary.
There cannot be any democratic basis for Boris Johnson acting almost as a dictator, bypassing normal parliamentary procedure, and assuming he has the authority and mandate to imprison all the British people and deny their fundamental right to freedom of movement and intimate contact with other people.
Which denial has not only social and human rights consequences, but also serious business one affecting the livelihoods of millions of people, and it appears quite possibly causing permanent business and job loss, especially the latter in the hospitality industry, it is already clear.
The 50 page document he has approved and released gives no end date to the lockdown, tells us that covid-19 will be with us also for an indefinite period, and the whole exercise implies that these measures may be repeated at the whim of himself or any other government that succeeds him given any approximately similar future set of circumstances – you know, next year it will likely be covid-20.
So the public is now facing the possibility of permanent continual lockdowns and social distancing, which is almost genocidal in its various ramifications.
As for example it is seriously interfering with the general population’s ability to mate and date, so effectively preventing them from breeding, equivalent almost to ordering a mass sterilisation program of the general public unless already married or having a live-in partner.
Likewise, as the measures announced by the document also indicate that “the vulnerable” and “over 70s” are being either advised or forced (it is not yet clear) to stay in prison “until it is safe” – which it may never be, at least certainly before they die, which is happening as always at the rate of about 50,000 a month dying of all causes under lockdown – this is effectively life imprisonment and solitary confinement (the thing most feared by actual convicted prisoners) until death for millions of old and vulnerable people.
This surely must even be against human rights law.
And I think Mr Johnson’s fears of the legality of his measures are all that restrains him from using the word “must” instead of “should”, though he has not hesitated to use the must word as regards social distancing generally, enforcing it by fines and possible judicial imprisonment in terrifying state prisons, not merely in one’s own home.
So as Mr Johnson is trying to attempt to change our whole way of life and deny our human rights (consider, even those with live-in partners may under this lockdown in many cases get into relationship ending rows, which might not even have happened otherwise, so also end up without an intimate partner), he cannot assume he has any democratic mandate for doing this, and we are still living in a democracy officially, not a dictatorship.
He must therefore either put this to the people, as with the EU referendum, or call a general election, which would enable the public to democratically choose which government they want to steer them through this covid-19 disaster and any future ones like it.
Because frankly, the only reason Mr Johnson now has his majority, is because of the anger over the failure to deliver Brexit, and the belief that Mr Johnson would do so.
Not because the people were granting him the right to lock the whole nation up in house arrest, due to a respiratory infection that is already officially admitted to have no significant or unusual impact upon the under 50s or 60s.
One guesses he will prefer the former – the referendum – to the latter.
Mr Johnson, like so many other national leaders, has simply used the excuse of “every other nation is doing it” to lock us all up, following first the Draconian example of China, and then of Italy, which latter appears to have had a wholly disproportionate problem to everybody else, and so was not ever a suitable role model.
Because if he doesn’t somehow establish this democratic mandate, the now mute voices will start to be heard, and the deeply unnatural character of this lockdown, denying the most basic of human rights to freedom and “the pursuit of happiness” will cause mass rebellion amongst the public, with awful possible consequences therefore on social order, which once again will terrify the old, who are supposed to be the main ones being protected, the very most.
This blunder is not merely Mr Johnson’s poll tax, but something far, far worse, that even Mrs Thatcher would not have contemplated feasible, but has only seemed acceptable as so many other governments had already imposed it on their own people.
No doubt the rebellion against it is also going to be global, and the greatest hope to end this tyranny so far seems to be coming from America, where the belief in freedom has been long established, since throwing off the British tyranny of the time at the establishment of American Independence.
The real shame should be on the media, who should be holding the government to account, but it is my suspicion are not doing so due to a political motivation to get rid of Boris Johnson.
That is, by egging him on to digging a hole so deep that even his “populist” supporters will finally turn on him; but with the media aiders and abettors forgetting that they themselves are going to end up also in this hole they are thereby helping him create, which apparently may well include a serious economic depression in which even they may lose their jobs.
What it appears we should be focusing on is whether this action taken by our government – without proper parliamentary debate, or even a vote – is actually occurring in a country that is any longer a free country or democracy.
There has for example already now been a successful overturning of the lockdown order in the US, reported in the Guardian:
“Wisconsin supreme court strikes down state’s stay-at-home order”https://www.theguardian.com…
There is also partially underway a legal challenge via judicial review by businessman Simon Dolan, as to whether this was actually a legal action taken by the government or not, which I also support, but feel that the near total absence of democracy involved in these measures is the larger point.
https://www.crowdjustice.co…
However, let us stick with the legal issue for the moment, and just refer to the 1689 Bill of Rights, which is still of legal effect in England and Wales.
Which for example provides “for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.”
Which has not been in the case it appears during the lockdown.
And that parliamentary scrutiny, amidst extreme and unprecedented measures like these, has been practically eliminated, appears to defy the most fundamental basis of our democracy, especially as there was not even a parliamentary vote upon the lockdown measures.
This failure is rendered even more extremely “out of order”, as this “fight against covid-19” has been framed as a war from the outset, with even in my view the totally crazed forming of a “war cabinet.”
At which point, surely anybody sane feared that the likely more serious outbreak was one of madness in government, not of a respiratory disease.
I’m obviously not going to attempt to gauge the legality of what the government has done here, which no doubt legal experts will be arguing for a long time over, but to simply state the it seems to be a gross denial of what we normally regard as freedom and democracy.
Which for example, under the US Constitution is protected by the First Amendment as rights to freedom of speech, publicly assembly, practice of religion and so on, which probably are the bases of the successful legal actions in the US.
The problem in this country appears to be that as there are no clear constitutional rights, such as unfettered free speech, we are actually in the position that the still more or less freedom of the press, the media, is the only genuine safeguard on our liberty.
And it is this gross failure of the media to hold the government to account, but on the contrary, to more or less gleefully aid and abet him in this mass imprisonment, which has allowed Mr Johnson to tread all over our rights.
As well as of course the almost entirely neutered “official Opposition”, which on the whole has been asking for even more denial of human rights than Mr Johnson!
This seems to have left us with the unprecedented situation of a media and political class which is more or less in cahoots in taking away the public’s freedom, based on uncertain scientific advice.
Mr Johnson has abdicated responsibility for our freedom to scientists, he is telling us we are now ruled by the R value, and not by a democratically elected and accountable government any more.
That the media are not contesting this in the most vociferous way, whether or not they agree the lockdown, is appalling, if they still have any genuine concerns for democracy or freedom.
And it is especially concerning as they also are – unlike the usual “wars” such as Iraq or the Falklands, which are fought thousands of miles away – participants on the front line of this latest phoney and unjustified war, and subject to the same restrictions as everyone else.
Or at least in theory.
Because as I have already pointed out in well supported comments at various places, one of the greatest problems is that this “war” and “lockdown” is having vastly disproportionate effects on different groups.
With the main victims who are suffering the very most being the old, vulnerable, the poor – i.e. who cannot even afford to stockpile, and may even lose their homes if they can’t pay rent – those unable to drive, and those without a live-in partner, which are quite often characteristics all commonly affecting the same people.
But not everyone equally.
As those for example without live-in partners, are under this “social distancing” policy being forbidden to satisfy this natural urge for intimacy, which may amount even to merely hugs or close personal contact with friends of either gender, or even just acquaintances one “flirts with”, which almost everybody considers a basic human right and need.
And as a consequence, we find not only has “Mr Lockdown” himself, Professor Ferguson, been flouting his own rules repeatedly, but no doubt numerous others both in and out of the public eye have been also.
Which if millions have already been doing, or are going to be soon doing by some desperate method or other, makes a total nonsense of any effort to impose any effective lockdown.
When what these people are in my view quite legitimately entitled to do, is going to involve not only the avoidance of a two metre gap, but engaging in an activity which is 100% certain to pass on any contagious or airborne virus – this is nothing to do with condom use or lack of it, like HIV, it’s far easier to spread than that.
And of course, we should note in the Professor Ferguson case, his alleged mistress even has a husband and children, she is living with under the therefore so called “lockdown”, to whom any virus would undoubtedly spread.
And we can assume huge numbers, not in the public eye, have long been behaving exactly the same way, once again making the whole idea there has been any serious or effective lockdown into a mockery.
The King Canute level thinking going on (I sighed deeply when I heard Boris Johnson say the actual words “he was going to turn the tide in x weeks”, confirming “the madness of King Boris”, currently at least) is rather like the famous tale of the boy who saves the Dutch seaside town by putting his finger in the d**e.
But we can imagine in real life as the “covid-19 flood” has not got any solid barrier to prevent it, it quickly pours through a “d**e” which in real life is full of holes.
Including the fact, thousands of illegal immigrants (and even official foreign visitors) are arriving here regularly, totally un-monitored, spreading god knows what diseases they may have.
But no proper attempt is made to control our borders and beaches by sea patrols or whatever other means, which again makes a mockery of locking our own citizens up.
I read one news item in the last decade, that said Italy had about 700 boats patrolling its coastline, whereas we had only 3 under Theresa May as Home Secretary.
There cannot be any democratic basis for Boris Johnson acting almost as a dictator, bypassing normal parliamentary procedure, and assuming he has the authority and mandate to imprison all the British people and deny their fundamental right to freedom of movement and intimate contact with other people.
Which denial has not only social and human rights consequences, but also serious business one affecting the livelihoods of millions of people, and it appears quite possibly causing permanent business and job loss, especially the latter in the hospitality industry, it is already clear.
The 50 page document he has approved and released gives no end date to the lockdown, tells us that covid-19 will be with us also for an indefinite period, and the whole exercise implies that these measures may be repeated at the whim of himself or any other government that succeeds him given any approximately similar future set of circumstances – you know, next year it will likely be covid-20.
So the public is now facing the possibility of permanent continual lockdowns and social distancing, which is almost genocidal in its various ramifications.
As for example it is seriously interfering with the general population’s ability to mate and date, so effectively preventing them from breeding, equivalent almost to ordering a mass sterilisation program of the general public unless already married or having a live-in partner.
Likewise, as the measures announced by the document also indicate that “the vulnerable” and “over 70s” are being either advised or forced (it is not yet clear) to stay in prison “until it is safe” – which it may never be, at least certainly before they die, which is happening as always at the rate of about 50,000 a month dying of all causes under lockdown – this is effectively life imprisonment and solitary confinement (the thing most feared by actual convicted prisoners) until death for millions of old and vulnerable people.
This surely must even be against human rights law.
And I think Mr Johnson’s fears of the legality of his measures are all that restrains him from using the word “must” instead of “should”, though he has not hesitated to use the must word as regards social distancing generally, enforcing it by fines and possible judicial imprisonment in terrifying state prisons, not merely in one’s own home.
So as Mr Johnson is trying to attempt to change our whole way of life and deny our human rights (consider, even those with live-in partners may under this lockdown in many cases get into relationship ending rows, which might not even have happened otherwise, so also end up without an intimate partner), he cannot assume he has any democratic mandate for doing this, and we are still living in a democracy officially, not a dictatorship.
He must therefore either put this to the people, as with the EU referendum, or call a general election, which would enable the public to democratically choose which government they want to steer them through this covid-19 disaster and any future ones like it.
Because frankly, the only reason Mr Johnson now has his majority, is because of the anger over the failure to deliver Brexit, and the belief that Mr Johnson would do so.
Not because the people were granting him the right to lock the whole nation up in house arrest, due to a respiratory infection that is already officially admitted to have no significant or unusual impact upon the under 50s or 60s.
One guesses he will prefer the former – the referendum – to the latter.
Mr Johnson, like so many other national leaders, has simply used the excuse of “every other nation is doing it” to lock us all up, following first the Draconian example of China, and then of Italy, which latter appears to have had a wholly disproportionate problem to everybody else, and so was not ever a suitable role model.
Because if he doesn’t somehow establish this democratic mandate, the now mute voices will start to be heard, and the deeply unnatural character of this lockdown, denying the most basic of human rights to freedom and “the pursuit of happiness” will cause mass rebellion amongst the public, with awful possible consequences therefore on social order, which once again will terrify the old, who are supposed to be the main ones being protected, the very most.
This blunder is not merely Mr Johnson’s poll tax, but something far, far worse, that even Mrs Thatcher would not have contemplated feasible, but has only seemed acceptable as so many other governments had already imposed it on their own people.
No doubt the rebellion against it is also going to be global, and the greatest hope to end this tyranny so far seems to be coming from America, where the belief in freedom has been long established, since throwing off the British tyranny of the time at the establishment of American Independence.
The real shame should be on the media, who should be holding the government to account, but it is my suspicion are not doing so due to a political motivation to get rid of Boris Johnson.
That is, by egging him on to digging a hole so deep that even his “populist” supporters will finally turn on him; but with the media aiders and abettors forgetting that they themselves are going to end up also in this hole they are thereby helping him create, which apparently may well include a serious economic depression in which even they may lose their jobs.