In my column this week, I argued that the rise of the omicron variant has humiliated a dismal pro-lockdown establishment which nevertheless has retained a grip on the debate, as we see from the continued prevalence of restrictions on our lives. Here, I respond to a selection of comments from Telegraph readers:
Wim Kotze argued that the “case against lockdown stands even without a milder Covid”, as the harms of lockdown outweigh any benefits.
I agree that the latter point could well be provable – if only the Government would not remain so stubbornly opaque about the cost-benefit analyses that it may or may not have undertaken – but I fear that it would not be enough. Reflecting the extent to which politics is, well, political rather than rational, cost-benefit analyses rarely form the basis for government decision-making. Quite the opposite. Too often (for example with taxation) they are undertaken after a decision has already been made rather than before it.
In other words, even if the Government produced a cost-benefit analysis that demonstrated that the harms of lockdown to society and the economy outweighed the benefits to the NHS and published it for the world to see, it does not necessarily follow that it would abandon its current position.
Sadly the art of government is not about making the net-best decisions for society, but avoiding a narrow variety of politically explosive scenarios. The most fearsome among them is a winter meltdown in the NHS, keenly covered by the press. As another reader, Beech More, wryly noted on my column, the mainstream media has “hit the mother lode with Covid”.
We are currently missing the one key ingredient that would make abandoning lockdowns as a policy option not just logically irrefutable but politically feasible – a detailed alternative strategic plan, based on the Swedish model. A combination of factors, from scientific groupthink to poor Downing Street leadership, prevent this from being formulated.
R Hood argued that there should be more focus on the public sector: that this group has had “an easy ride with no job risk and very lucrative pensions … It is this state within a state that has been leading the lockdown agenda.”
I agree, and would have elaborated further on my point in the piece about the administrative bourgeoisie’s support for seasonal lockdowns, had the word count permitted me. Not only is this group financially protected despite lockdowns, it can benefit from a permanent emergency. After all, thanks to the rise of a new Covid regulatory state, the bureaucratic class is set to enjoy not just greater work flexibility, but also expanded administrative job opportunities.
Hugh McEwen meditated on whether the “globalist dream of a cowed and compliant society ruled by technocrats is far closer now in the UK than it was two years ago”. Covid does indeed seem to be cultivating a society that is significantly more socialist, highly invasive and ultimately ruled by fear.
It isn’t too late to turn things around. But, as many are asking today: is Boris Johnson really the man to do it?
