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.