Posted on by JB

Lockdown UK: Was It Justified? Part 3 – Impact and Precedent

See parts One and Two here:

 

 

Finally, in our examination of the UK lockdown, we must consider the primary reason for which it was implemented. Contrary to perhaps the general perception, I do not believe that the lockdown was decided upon to reduce the death count alone.

What we heard from Boris in the early stages of the crisis seemed to suggest a lack of enthusiasm for such draconian measures, this was when a large number of deaths amounting to a particularly bad flu season was all that was on the cards. In fact, the lockdown came about mainly due to fears that the NHS would collapse under the weight of those infected, which would mean a crisis for all, rather than the relatively few critically affected by covid. Boris’s talk of ‘herd immunity’, with 60% of the population needing to contract the disease, may seem callous and barbaric to our insulated reality of monitored movement and restricted travel, however this really was the government’s initial response to the pandemic. In order to understand why, we need to realize that lockdown was never meant to prevent such a thing happening, in fact, it is still likely that similar proportion of the population will still get the virus, and that herd immunity is very much still our best bet of getting covid under control for good. This is because the virus will not simply go away; the only things which will truly eradicate such a disease are either a vaccine – which doesn’t look imminent – or a total lockdown which lasts so incredibly long that every vestige of the virus fades away. As neither of these are a tangible possibility in the coming months, covid will continue to spread and infect many of those who were previously shielded by lockdown, this will persist until some kind of herd immunity has been reached. This means that, in fact, a number of people will likely contract the virus over the next few years which may end up being somewhere close to Boris’ 60%. The lockdown – even if we assume it was effective – merely had the effect of slowing the rate at which this herd immunity is reached, spreading out the damage over a long period of time, and protecting the operational integrity of the NHS. Although the idea of the NHS collapsing is something to be taken very seriously, the evidence shows that we were never even close to that being a reality, with massive new hospitals containing thousands of beds, constructed rapidly and at great expense, standing either near empty or entirely unused at the height of the pandemic. The argument would of course be that the lockdown prevented the crisis reaching these critical levels, however, in light of the evidence from other countries, it is likely that a better prepared and funded healthcare system, along with more rational travel restrictions, would have more than compensated for what relief the lockdown provided.

 

There is also an argument which suggests that lockdowns may have even hindered our effort to control the death rate. This view comes from an examination of the very high death rate in care homes, making up around a quarter of the total deaths. It is argued that the lockdown put the focus too heavily on the whole population, who were at a comparatively low risk, when all our efforts should have been directed at those actually at a significant risk, being the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. As the vast majority of deaths came from these demographics, a plan which focused on them exclusively could have theoretically kept the death rate low, while allowing the working population to continue on, almost as usual, and sparing our economy from decimation.

The Precedent set by Lockdown

One final point which needs to be considered, is the precedent set by the lockdown, after all, before the pandemic I for one would have considered ability to put the entire nation under effective house arrest for months, something a British government could not do, let alone would do at the first sign of a national emergency. Now, the act was indeed passed by parliament however, and while this does make the lockdown legal in the technical sense, it does not mean that the list of human rights which the UK supposedly abides by suddenly vanish. The lockdown clearly violates one of the most basic and long-standing rights which citizens have been afforded since the signing of the Magna Carta some eight hundred years ago, being the right to liberty and the ‘enjoyment of possessions’. Admittedly, it has been since stipulated that the state can circumvent these rights in certain circumstances, however, as we have seen in our examination of the lockdown, it is debatable as to whether we can deem the pandemic to be one of these circumstances, or, more to the point, what they even are. While the pandemic was an all-around disaster, I don’t believe it can be put on the same level as, for example, a war against an enemy invader. This is because the pandemic bears no real distinction from an average flu season, it differs in degree only. Whereas an enemy invader represents a novel threat which promises to tear down the current government putting the life and liberty of the whole nation in peril. Such threats warrant a draconian response, and it is imperative to the security of the nation, that such a response be reserved only for a specific kind of crisis. Looking at the real severity of the pandemic, and what alternatives could have alleviated the need for lockdown, it is very difficult to conclude that this was one of those crisis’. This unfortunately leaves us in the disconcerting position of the government having the ability to impose wartime-like measures, almost at the drop of a hat, whenever the fear of some new emergency reaches a certain, undefined level. Although the fact that we maintain a sturdy democracy means that we are a way off the authoritarian depths the likes of China, it is certainly worrying that our country appears to be systematically shedding many of those rights and freedoms which, in previous eras, would have been used to illustrate the difference between our liberal democracy, and the various despotic regimes of the world.

In conclusion, it is predictably difficult to pinpoint the exact, or even approximate causes of the covid crisis. However, I do not believe the burden of proof is on the side of the lockdown sceptic, but rather on the side of the government who is in the business of stripping us of rights, rather than protecting them. This being the case, there does not appear to be a clear pattern of evidence which suggests that the lockdown was necessary, or even particularly effective. In fact, there is a large amount of data which implies the opposite, and this being the case, the argument for the lockdown seems to fail at meeting this standard of proof. I am not saying that the government’s actions were definitively wrong, or even that things would have been better without a lockdown, what I am saying is there is a valid case against the lockdown, and that the precedent which the government has established in past months raises serious concerns.

Back to top