November 27, 2021 - 6:40pm
A new variant has been identified that we don’t know a lot about. It seems to be significantly more transmissible than other variants; there is no evidence yet that it is any worse in terms of symptoms; and there is no evidence yet that it escapes existing vaccines, but scientists are more concerned that it might because of the large degree of mutations on the ‘protein spike.’ One connected cluster consisting of two people has been identified within the UK.
That, at the moment, is the sum total of information the Government has to respond to.
Most people, although they will be disappointed, will understand the temporary additional controls for people arriving from overseas and in particular from the affected countries in Southern Africa, while we discover more. They will also at least understand the logic of stringent requirements for people who come into direct contact with one of these so-called “Omicron” cases.
But some of the other measures talked about today at the Prime Minister’s briefing are so arbitrary and illogical that they will make people angry.
First, journalists queued up to ask the Prime Minister why he is not doing “more” and introducing vaccine passports. It hasn’t yet happened, but it is important to address the logic right away. The fear about this new variant is that it will substantially evade protection from vaccines; Chris Whitty has already confirmed that it can pass from one double-vaccinated person to another. Further vaccine escape would be bad news precisely because it would put vaccinated and unvaccinated people back in the same boat. Along the way, it would destroy the rationale for any form of segregation of the population by vaccine status, such as vaccine passports. To their credit, neither Whitty nor Vallance even bothered to respond to the idea.
By contrast, the decision to reimpose mandatory facemasks in shops is effective immediately. Is there a single scientist that believes upgrading the advice on reusable cloth facemasks in shops from recommended to mandatory for the entire population is a meaningful response to two new cases of a new variant on our shores? As Boris Johnson himself said, the protocols we had in place already were adequate for the previous variants, so any new strategy for the “Omicron” variant is, in theory, all about containment.
But what percentage of Covid transmission events have ever happened in shops? What percentage of those would be cases of the “Omicron” variant? And what percentage of those would be prevented by the return of mandatory advice? We are into a very small fraction of 1 percent at this point.
Meanwhile, masks are not mandatory in hospitality settings, or public events — or, obviously, homes and workplaces, where most transmission actually occurs after prolonged exposure.
So it’s utterly tokenistic. But worse, it suggests the return of restrictions as a form of gesture politics. In exchange for a theoretical gain so marginal as to be entirely irrelevant, the Government is choosing to impose a daily inconvenience that is a notorious source of division on its entire population. This is a bad bargain, and a continuation of a blinkered policy mindset that has bedevilled this pandemic.
Millions of people’s reaction to this news about facemasks will now be to say :“ah, they’re just warming us up for further restrictions down the road” or “they’re trying to make people afraid again” or “they’re just doing something to pacify the pro-lockdown lobby” or “it’s just to defend the Government from accusations of not having done enough” — sadly, it not possible with this measure to say that they are wrong.
Those, by contrast, who say, “facemasks are such a minor thing why would anyone complain about it?” miss the point. The introduction of restrictive policies that nobody thinks will be effective increases the atmosphere of distrust, amplifies the conspiracies, and widens the divisions in society. This in itself is a serious negative effect, and should be taken into account before casually introducing restrictions on a ‘might as well’ basis.
Freddie Sayers is the Editor-in-Chief & CEO of UnHerd. He was previously Editor-in-Chief of YouGov, and founder of PoliticsHome.
freddiesayers
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.
SubscribeThanks, as always, to Dr. Stock. Leaping to the defence of Wittgenstein, I do not find Bernard Suits’ definition of a game to be persuasive. For example, the BBC Radio 4 panel game “Just a Minute”: the prelusory goal is to talk for a minute on a specified topic and the rule is no hesitation, deviation or repetition. But what makes the game entertaining (its been broadcast for the last 56 years) is when a participant finds a novel way of abusing the “lusory attitude”. Suits assumes that the point of game playing is to win (according to the rules), whereas some games have a hidden agenda of providing entertainment for an audience.
N.B. I can’t stand “Just a Minute”.
Yes, also thinking of LW… what is the ‘unnecessary obstacle’ when playing catch? (“And if you want to say ‘this or that is the unnecessary obstacle’, then I reply: very well, it is – though you still owe me a definition of unnecessary obstacle.”)
“Then there are the rules…”
Earls Court, Bank, Clapham Common, Baker Street, Mornington Crescent!
Yeah, but the jails are full and we’re all electronically tagged now.
Still too early for Christmas articles.
I would note that people generally prefer to play digital games on their phone which may well be reflected in Christmas family scenes. It’s another sad extension of the solipsism of modern life.
If you want to feel a sense of community, watch chess streamed on Twitch or YouTube.
What a cynical article on something that basically brings joy to people! Board games today are more interesting and better designed than ever, even than many of the classics such as Monopoly (that drags on forever).
“On this interpretation, we are not so much getting away from the online world as enacting it more vividly with the help of physical props.”
We can’t win then! Even with in-person face-to-face interaction we are accused of being Internet addicts. Some people benefit from an activity to do when they socialise (particularly men, to generalise). Rather than stifling deep conversation it is a ice breaker.
My observation is that Gen Z are not the most addicted to smart phones; arguably, they have developed better habits of checking the addiction, whereas older generations have been taken by surprise by the sudden relentless effort to grab our attention. On that note, time to get back to my family and our massive pile of board games we have on holiday with us. I’m holding out for Scrabble, personally!
Monopoly is f***ing awful. You know within the first 5 minutes who is going to win, and you then have to go through the motions for the next too ours waiting for it to happen
Monopoly should be called Monotony
Thanks for the magazine recommendation.
I loathe board games and if forced to play lose as quickly as possible!
Yesterday I a’woke to an Windows 11 start screen advertising that:
“An AI-powered app is helping people build healthier habits by turning health and wellness into a game”
I wonder which softer-than-a-soybean employee wrote that?
Posting comments on Unherd is a kind of game, with no ‘prelusory objective’
Play can take place outside the contours of any well defined rules or goals… Eg, in art, or in ‘mucking about’
In fact, Life is a game, the greatest Game of all. There are rules, obstacles, and a goal. Happiness, however, is a way to travel, not a destination ….
We are all game players. As erstwhile UnHerd writer Will Storr said in his book “The Status Game”, we can’t help but play the status game, though we can never win.
Haven’t we heard all the same arguments raised against video and online games, and before that against spectator sports?