Large parts of the EU has been closed down. Borders have been closed inside Europe, bringing free movement to an end. That is what the Brexiters, and other economic nationalists, had as their goal, but were unable to achieve. It has, instead, been achieved, almost overnight, as a result of the moral panic created over COVID19. I emphasise that its been brought about by the moral panic rather than by the virus itself. There is no rational basis for having closed borders, or for closing down large parts of the economy. On the contrary, its highly irrational. Its precisely the kind of irrational response that occurs with every such moral panic.
The UK government is being asked why it is out of step with other governments in Europe and in the US, in not rushing into action to close schools, ban public gatherings and so on. The real question ought to be why have those other governments rushed into those irrational actions? The UK governments actions are themselves irrational and contradictory, as I've described in previous posts. In part, that's a result of its own attempts to appease the hubbub created by the moral panic, but its actions are not wrong simply for not following the irrational actions of other governments that have dived into panic measures that have all the signs of being for show rather than for their effectiveness, either in dealing with the virus, or in terms of their wider implications for society.
In 2014, when the world was gripped with fear over the spread of Ebola, I suggested that it was time to seal off borders. The argument, then, compared to today, was simple. Ebola kills around 90% of those infected. There was no vaccine. If the virus spread quickly and extensively, large numbers of people would inevitably die. The same would be true, if we did not have vaccines, if a global smallpox pandemic was spreading. The option of building up a herd immunity, in place of a vaccine cannot apply in these conditions, because such a high mortality rate for those infected exists, i.e. instead of a large number surviving, and developing immunity, they simply die. As it turned out, in 2014, the spread of the virus was contained without closing borders. It was helped by the fact that its not an airborne virus, and a strategy of containment, by identifying carriers, and isolating them from the general population, was able to prevent its spread.
But, with COVID19, the situation is completely reversed. Where Ebola has a 90% mortality rate, COVID19 has a 1% mortality rate. Where Ebola infected a relatively small number of people, and was not easily spread, COVID19 is easily spread, and is likely to infect around 80% of the population. Where with Ebola, and other such diseases, with high mortality rates, it is the relatively small numbers of carriers who need to be isolated, with COVID 19, and its very low mortality rate, its the small number of people that might die, or have serious illness, as a result of infection, that needs to be isolated from it. We know who that small number of people are. Small number here is relative. It amounts to around 15-20% of the population, which for the EU (including Britain) amounts to about 100 million people, out of its 500 million population. Enabling 100 million people throughout Europe to be isolated, for the duration, whilst the virus is killed off, will require a lot of resources. It requires the level of resources that are only possible if the economy itself continues to function at its normal level.
But, instead of doing that, governments in the US and Europe have responded to populist demands to “get something done”, in the way they normally do, which is by taking large, visible actions, to dispel the public and media criticism, but actions, which, in themselves, are an irrational response to the situation, and, thereby, make things worse. What was required was to enable the 20% of the population who are at high risk to be able to self-isolate themselves against infection. That means that they needed to be able to have necessary supplies of goods and services delivered to them at home, and to have them delivered in such a way that no personal contact was required. In an age of Internet shopping that is not an impossible thing to achieve. But, it does require that the stores and suppliers of these goods and services themselves continue to operate, and that they have not been shut down by a blanket ban on activity, including people who have no noticeable ill-health (even if they might be infected) from continuing to work as normal.
Of course, some services are impossible to deliver without personal contact. Many of those in the at risk group are elderly and require social care in their home, or in a care home. But, many of those that provide such care are young. The carers, provided they have no health problems, such as asthma and so on, will almost certainly contract the virus at some point, because scientists predict that around 80% of the population will be infected. There is no reason why those young, healthy carers will not continue to have social interaction with other young healthy people. Given that they will have no serious consequences from contracting the virus, there is no pressing reason why they should be isolated from it, because in contracting it, they will build up their own immunity, which means that they will then no longer be a potential carrier of it. The problem arises because, in being a potential carrier of the virus, they could pass it on to those they provide care for, who would be at serious risk from it. The clear answer, here, is that the carers need to be provided with adequate safety equipment so that they do not pass it on. The criticism of the government should be that it has failed to ensure that such equipment is available. That is true both in the case of carers, and for hospital staff. It is a consequence of ten years of austerity by conservative and liberal-conservative governments since 2010.
But, as I pointed out in 2014, one effect of the closing down of economic activity, and closing down of borders is that it does show what can be expected from Brexit, and what would be the consequence of following such policies of economic nationalism in general. The Brexiteers claimed that the predictions of panic buying, of shops being emptied of goods, of economic dislocation, and so on, as a result of a crash out Brexit were all scaremongering and Project Fear. Well, we have not had the kind of closing down of borders and economic activity that a crash out Brexit will bring, but already we have seen panic buying empty stores, we have seen draconian limits on free movement imposed, we have planes grounded, and we have seen the economy almost grind to a halt, even worse than was happening in Britain prior to the outbreak. Even China has seen its economy actually contract for the first time in decades, and stock markets are in free fall.
But, as I said the other day, even COVID19 isn't forever. Its effects will disappear in a few months time. Brexit, on the other hand, is a self inflicted injury that will continue as an open wound forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment