COVID-19 and business as usual

In the midst of the current global COVID-19 crisis a Dutch commentator put forward a disturbing rhetorical question.

Why, this person asked, are we disrupting our entire economy, sinking millions of people into unemployment, poverty, domestic tensions, psychological stress and depression, in order to save one per cent of the population?

The individual went further, saying the one per cent were mostly elderly or people with bad lifestyles, many of whom had limited life expectancy anyway.

In other words, was the survival of a few worth the stress and dislocation of society for the many?

As can be expected, the immediate reaction was an emotional one, with arguments about the sacredness of every human life and debate over whether authorities should be ‘playing God’.

However, jurisdictions around the world have been considering this question, if not in quite so bald terms.

Even as deaths continue to mount in the United States, President Donald Trump has been champing at the bit to get the country back to work and some State Governors are easing restrictions in the face of angry demonstrators who say they have had enough of lockdowns and want to start earning again.

In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro has been openly hostile to any restrictions, calling COVID-19 nothing more than “a little flu” and famously arguing that lockdowns would be same as “closing car factories because there are traffic accidents”.

Some countries have tackled the virus through the theory of ‘herd immunity’, allowing it to spread through the community on the basis that the more who contract it and recover, the greater the build-up of immunity.

What advocates of this tend to play down is that a significant minority will not recover and die.

Strip this down and you have an argument between proponents of the preservation of life above all else and those who believe that a small percentage of deaths is an acceptable price to pay in order to ensure the economic wellbeing of the vast majority.

Advocates of the latter course point to the fact that in lockdowns people still die; the number of lives that have been saved cannot be known, while the economic and social costs are becoming clearer by the moment.

Governments that initiated strict lockdowns are going to have to deal with the consequences that will extend over years if not decades — long after, I suspect, the trauma of the death toll itself has subsided.

Even so the counter-argument that Governments are just businesses running to make profits (surpluses) to be handed back their shareholders (citizens) in the form of lower taxes, holds fundamental flaws when it comes to dealing with a crisis like COVID-19

It cannot be properly reconciled with a duty to look after the health, welfare and happiness of its citizens, to ensure there are enough hospitals and schools of sufficient quality; that the roads are paved and the railways work, that cultural life flourishes and sufficient opportunities are available — for what is needed, but also for what is wanted.

The business model of Government is failing now, and in the wake of COVID-19 would be a recipe for untold misery and ultimately social unrest.

In prosperity the role of Government should be to always look at ways to make things even better; in crisis it must shoulder the burden of repairing the damage.

Never in modern times has there been a greater need for inspirational leaders who can point the way forward, not necessarily by the easiest way, but the best.

This will be the test for the men and women who will seek to take on this responsibility in the difficult and dangerous times to come.

No obituaries for globalisation

In a recent television interview, the self-styled architect of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, Nigel Farage, was at it again.

This time he had bigger targets in his sights – the demise of the European Union itself and with it the concept of globalisation.

The COVID-19 pandemic was doing it, he said. Flights were halted, national borders were being strengthened; international agencies were neutered and all over the world ultra-nationalist leaders – including his personal friend Donald Trump, were in the ascendancy.

A week is a long time in a pandemic, and since Farage made those gleeful predictions things have changed.

Populist Governments, including that of the UK, are proving the least capable of dealing with the crisis. There, and in Trump’s United States, the death tolls are still rising while other countries with more mainstream (dare I say competent) administrations are beginning to see lights at the end of their tunnels.

In Brazil, Populist President Jair Bolsonaro is running amok, claiming the pandemic is “just a little flu” and pointedly flaunting social distancing advice by shaking hands and hugging anyone who is daft enough to get near him.

The avidly pro-business leader had this comment to those who questioned his free-wheeling attitude to the crisis: “People are going to die, I’m sorry, but you can’t close a car factory because there are traffic accidents.”

This weekend he finally sacked his long-suffering Minister for Health who has desperately tried to promote traditional methods of stopping the virus’ spread, such as lockdowns and business closures, in defiance of his boss’ antics. 

Leaving aside the ideology, those commentators with a knowledge of history that goes beyond yesterday’s tweet on their smartphones, will know that far from being a modern phenomenon, globalisation is a resilient beast with a lengthy pedigree.

It can be argued that it existed from the days when Phoenician merchants set sail across the Mediterranean in search of profits, but certainly since the 19^th century as the European exploitation of its colonies around the world went into overdrive.

Since then globalisation has survived the disruptions of two world wars, a flu pandemic far worse than this one, the Great Depression, 9/11 and the Global Financial Crisis.

In recent times, technology has strengthened its growth. The text messages that anti-globalisation activists use to organise their demonstrations would not exist without globalisation.

Finally, in the midst of this pandemic, the fight against the virus is being carried on through the cooperation of medical researchers working in laboratories around the world – a truly international effort that will bear fruit years in advance of isolated national efforts in even the most advanced countries.

Globalisation has its dark sides. It has been a conduit for misery as well as prosperity. It has benefitted international crime as well as global economies. The pandemic has exposed its faults as well as its strengths.

However, if the billions of humanity have any real hope of surviving, let alone flourishing, on this small stressed planet there is simply no other way.

Thoughts on the ‘new normal’

The case of an Australian man threatened with jail for drinking his takeaway coffee alone on a park bench raises questions of how far police should go in enforcing Government-sanctioned social isolation and stay-at-home-orders.

It is accepted that Australia is in a state of emergency, and certain freedoms that were once taken for granted are now curtailed.

However, the extent to which isolation and total obedience to authority can be enforced almost literally overnight in a free and robust democratic society needs thinking through.

The sight of squads of police and military on the streets, stopping and questioning people, is unsettling. It may be necessary, but with enforcement needs to come a certain degree of discretion.

Let’s go back to the man on the park bench. We know nothing about him, but let us imagine he lives alone in a small, one bedroom basement flat with nothing but the television and endless surfing of the internet to distract him.

Or he might be in slightly larger accommodation with his partner and two bored and argumentative children.

Suddenly deprived of his normal social activities of pub, club, gym and cinema, he just needed to get away, outside into the fresh air.

A few minutes with a takeaway coffee on a park bench, being careful to keep to social distancing rules, would seem a not unreasonable thing to do.

I do not share the view that our police are all fascists in the making, just hanging out for emergencies like this in order to push people around.

There are plenty of examples of this going on in the world at present. The young man in Kenya shot to death while standing out on his balcony because he was deemed to be breaking a curfew; Philippines military ordered to shoot anyone for “causing a commotion” — whatever that means.

Our police are not like that, but there are times, especially among the less experienced officers, of seeing things in black and white, while a few shades of grey are needed.

Otherwise the country could be faced with a new surge in mental illness when the current crisis is over.

Perhaps a more worrying result of this pandemic is the extent to which authorities in countries that should be best equipped to deal with it are being found wanting.

In the United States a simple thing like face masks is in such short supply that they are being issued only to medical and other emergency workers, and even then there are not enough to go round.

Members of the public are urged to cover their noses and mouths using “tee-shorts or bandanas” — this in a country that prides itself in being the richest and most advanced in the world.

In the UK, police have been cracking down on that most British of activities – dog walking. Some stores have been told not to sell chocolate Easter eggs “because they are not essential items”.

Yet when it comes to the really essential items, such as COVID-19 testings kits and ventilators, the Government has failed to produce.

As one National Health Service staff member said: “They ask people to applaud us, while not giving us the equipment we need to save live and even to protect ourselves.”

In recent decades leading Western nations have moved away from the socialist concept of cradle-to-grave care.

In doing so they have assured their people most will be better off in a free market allowing them to achieve their full potential, but that the Government would always be there with a safety net for those who fall by the wayside.

In recent weeks the safety net has been stretched and the holes have appeared.