COVID19 & Brexit

The moral panic generated over COVID19 has already seen Asian people attacked in Britain. It has seen Trump make a point of saying that the US was not at fault for those infected in the US, and, by implication, pointing the finger at China, and Chinese people as being responsible for the virus, and for its spread. All of this moral panic, and the xenophobia it creates, plays into the existing xenophobia and economic nationalism that has been fostered in recent years, whether in the form of Brexit, or in Trump's global trade war, and attacks on immigration, alongside the fermenting of similar ideas across Europe, whether it be Le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands, Farage in Britain, Haider in Austria, Orban in Hungary and others. The COVID19 moral panic has played into this narrative, and the calls for restrictions on free movement, and against globalisation. 

What is odd about this COVID19 moral panic is the seeming inability for any of the authorities to respond to it in a common sense manner. For example, we know that 80% of those that contract the virus will have such mild symptoms that many of them will not even know they have actually been afflicted by it. Children, it seems, are also either immune to, or else not affected by the virus. The sections of the population who are in jeopardy are people like me. That is people who are older, and/or who suffer from some form of respiratory disease, or other condition that might make them less able to fight it off. For people like me, we are much more likely, not only to suffer more severely, if infected, but even to die, which is what raises the overall mortality rate compared to the flu, for which we have existing vaccines. 

So, surely, what makes sense, is to focus resources on protecting those of us in the population who are most at risk of dying from it! Instead of having a blanket ban on free movement, and a mass call on everyone who may or may not have been infected, including, therefore, all of that 80% of people who will have no, or only mild, symptoms, surely it makes sense to ensure that those most at risk are able to be isolated from the risk of infection in the first place, until such time, as with flu, an effective vaccine can be produced. I watched in amazement last night on Channel 4 News, as one man who suffered from cystic fibrosis, and who had had a double lung transplant, had sensibly, along with his wife, self-isolated in his home. His parents dropped off his groceries, and so on. Absolutely sensible. Just because the chance of being run over by a bus is small, it doesn't mean you should tempt fate, by stepping out in front of them! But, then, I was astonished to then see this man come out of his home, and stand across the road in order to give an interview! In fact, I was a bit surprised to see the elderly Jon Snow, who last week reported that he was self-isolating in his flat, was back in the studio. 

Surely, if we want to take sensible measures to prevent avoidable deaths from COVID19, we should begin by enabling all those in at-risk groups, such as the elderly, and those with respiratory diseases, to stay away from work, and other venues where they might be infected. The chap interviewed by Channel 4 News was lucky in that his parents could deliver his groceries. Others are not so lucky, and that is where resources are required. Many of us now buy our groceries on line, and have them delivered. However, especially with the removal of plastic bags for packing up items, there is still a problem with having items removed from the delivery crates. (That is fresh in my mind having just taken a delivery, the delivery driver no doubt having come into contact with dozens of people today alone.)  Resolving that is surely not beyond the wit of supermarkets, even if it means leaving the crates to be collected later. 

Instead of having children stay away from school, if someone is infected, why not just have any school staff who might be in a high risk category be able to stay away from school. Their place could be filled by younger, healthier supply teachers in the intervening period, and so on. Why have all the children stay away from school, given that children appear not to be affected, and when the other consequence of that is that their parents then also need to stay away from work in order to look after them? Why is there an inability to adopt a common sense targeted approach, rather than imposing what appears to be a scatter-gun, blanket approach that acts to close down large parts of the economy unnecessarily? 

And, here, is the point in relation to the moral panic that has been generated, and the way it plays into reactionary economic nationalist tropes. Of course, on one level, free movement means that there is greater chance of the infection spreading. But, the real problem is not the spread of the virus, given that 80% of those that contract it experience no or only slight symptoms, but is that, without a vaccine, a proportion of the population who are at risk, stand a higher chance of dying than with the flu, for which there are existing vaccines we all can use every year. What is also clear, is that the other main determinant of mortality rates is the general standard of living and healthcare in countries where people may be infected. That is not surprising, because the two things go together. Only a couple of weeks ago, we had the UK report showing that, as a result of ten years of Tory austerity, the rise in life expectancy that has been going on for over a century, has come to a stop, in Britain, and, moreover, the known differences in life expectancy in affluent compared to deprived areas of the country has grown wider. 

Deaths in China appear to have been greater earlier on in the spread of the disease. Partly that can be explained by the fact that the disease was not diagnosed, and treatment was too late in being provided. But, its also explained by the fact that despite huge improvements in living standards, in China, in the last thirty years, large numbers of people remain on low levels of standard of living. Moreover, China does not have a comprehensive socialised healthcare system, as exists in Europe, so it was simply not possible for people without health cover to go to the doctor. Only when the disease spread rapidly did the Chinese state begin to erect emergency hospitals, and start to take in those affected for treatment, and so on. 

So, Trump may be right to say that the US is not responsible for the virus, or for individuals having contracted it, but US capitalism, and its vast disparities in wealth and affluence, and its lack of a socialised healthcare system, is responsible for the potential that more people in those at risk categories in the US, might die from it. It one again shows why if the Democrats go for the wishy-washy centrist option represented by Biden, rather than the progressive social-democratic option represented by Sanders, and his proposal for Medicare for all, they will fail to present adequate solutions for US workers, and will again be offering up the Presidency to Trump on a platter. 

When Ebola was spreading a few years ago, nearly everyone who contracted it, in Africa, died. It has a 90% mortality rate, compared to the 1% mortality rate for COVID19. Yet, even here, the effect of a higher living standard, and more developed economy was seen. Several of the western doctors, and aid workers that contracted the disease were able to recover, as a result of the healthcare provided to them when they were brought home. With COVID19, so far, in Britain, we have only six deaths, and they are all of people who were elderly and who suffered other underlying conditions. The message is quite clear that wherever the general level of economic development is greater, mortality rates are lower, wherever, the general standard of living is higher, and there is greater equality mortality rates are lower, and wherever there is access to good quality socialised healthcare, mortality rates are lower. 

But, what is it that has enabled economic development, and living standards to rise over the last thirty years? It is precisely globalisation, and free movement of goods, capital and people over a greater area. If there had not been that, global living standards and economic development would have been lower, and so although infection rates, and spread of the virus may have been slower – it would still have spread – mortality rates would have been higher. So, the economic nationalist tropes being spread on the basis of the moral panic are themselves fallacious. A look at what is happening in Britain illustrates the point. Already, we are being told that because hospital workers may be told not to come into work, patients with other conditions, including cancer patients waiting for surgery or other treatment may not be seen. With the number of fatalities from COVID19 still in single figures, its likely that more people will die from other conditions not being treated, as a result of a seizing up of economic activity, than will die from coronavirus. And, it comes on top of the fall in living standards that Brexit itself is bringing about, which in turn will have its effect on the poorest in society, who will be the first to suffer a drop in their living standards, in their healthcare, and so on, and amongst whom, therefore, mortality rates will rise the most. 

In fact, if you want to see what a stupid idea Brexit is, just look at what is already happening. The UK economy had already effectively gone into recession following the election of the Tory government in December, and its commitment to Brexit. Now, COVID19 is bringing about the kind of restriction on trade that BREXIT itself will inflict on the economy, and a resultant further drop in economic activity. If you want to see what Brexit, and its restriction on free trade and free movement will bring, just watch what happens in the next few weeks, as a result of those things freezing up as a result of the response to COVID19. 

Look at the restrictions imposed in China on free movement, and now in Italy. After all, the logic that calls for a restriction of free movement within the EU, or between the EU and Britain, applies equally to a restriction on free movement within Britain itself. The same logic that says Romanian workers should not take up jobs in Britain, applies equally to Geordie workers seeking to take up better paid jobs, or seeking to escape unemployment on Tyneside, by moving to London. Of itself, it fosters the kind of parochialism and narrow mindedness of days gone by that should have been a thing of the past. As Marx said, one of the greatest achievement of capitalism was sweeping away many of those restrictions and the parochialism and idiocy that went with them. The last thing we need is to turn the clock back to those days when workers were restricted in their movement, and tied to the land in their own localities where they could be exploited more easily, and where they could be turned against outsiders, scapegoated as the source of their problems, whether, in those days, it was the failure of their crops, or, today, the spread of viruses, or falls in their living standards, lack of adequate schools and hospitals etc. 

The answer to our problems resides in the future, not a return to the past.