Covid inquiry is a reminder that freedom matters as well as saving lives
The Covid inquiry continues labouring under the lopsided assumption that the only thing that matters in a pandemic is the number of deaths prevented. There was always an alternative to lockdowns, says Charles Amos
Recently the Covid inquiry has stated the government acted too little and too late in introducing lockdown in March 2020 with the consequence being an additional 23,000 deaths in the first wave. The inquiry states ‘restrictions…were too weak’, ‘not in place long enough’ and the government had ‘a lack of adequate surveillance mechanisms’. Such judgements are grounded on the false premise government should have broadly sought to minimise the loss of life. No. Freedom should have been upheld instead; whilst still protecting the vulnerable, even if this would have resulted in more deaths.
Many people are fervent lockdowns should have been much tougher given 227,000 people died with Covid across the pandemic. An obvious assumption here is that lockdowns actually work. This is questionable. While Britain had three severe lockdowns and ended 2023 with an excess death rate of 390 per 100,000, Sweden, famously having had no lockdowns at all, ended 2023 with an excess death rate of just 235 per 100,000. But I am no scientist, so, I shan’t comment on scientific matters anymore; besides to say, SAGE modelling for the Omicron variant in the winter of 2021 said between 600 to 6,000 daily deaths would occur when in reality a maximum of only 202 did.
It is truly reprehensible that the government decided, throughout the pandemic, to massively curtail our freedom. Some object that freedom-curtailing lockdowns were justifiable as they stopped people from harming others by passing on a deadly virus. The great problem with this reply is two-fold. One, there is a base level of risk of deadly infection you can impose on others, and, two, people can consent to deadly infections thus making any health harm not morally problematic. Private arrangements could have divided society between those wanting a normal life willing to consent to risking infection, and older people wanting to stay at home due to their greater vulnerability.
Let me explain. There is an inalienable risk of deadly infection you can impose on others, e.g., flu has a fatality rate of 0.1 per cent and we still permit people with it outside. While the average infection fatality rate of Covid was 0.66 per cent, the infection fatality rate for those up to 50 was a maximum of only 0.035 per cent, and, even for 50 to 59 year olds it was just 0.123 per cent. The under 50s then should have been free to interact with each other as normal because they would have exposed each other to no more than the acceptable risk of flu. What about the elderly though? They should have been cocooned in their homes to avoid the increased number of infections. Instead of furloughing most of the country on 80 per cent of their salary to do nothing at £140bn, every over 50 and vulnerable person could have got a state stipend and home deliveries at a fraction of that cost.
Reprehensible curtailment of freedom
Some elderly people, though, would still have wanted to live a normal life, and, they should have been free to do so too. Provided pubs, restaurants and bingo halls made clear entry amounted to consent to the risk of infection, then any resultant deaths would have presented no issue of injustice. More people might have died under this liberal scheme, fine; for many there is more to life than longevity, including the joy of seeing your kids, having a pint with friends or going to a nightclub. I have painted a starkly divided society for brevity, but respecting private property and competition could’ve created a sliding scale of different risk environments for diverse people.
A final point against full freedom in March 2020 is it would have imposed the negative externality of an overwhelmed health system on the elderly who decided to just stay at home but got infected anyway. The obvious solution to this decent criticism is not the blunt instrument of a lockdown, but a variable Pigouvian tax on Covid treatment. When NHS resources were stretched at the peaks of waves the tax could have gone up to internalise the large externality of packed beds and maxed out ventilators and fallen when spare capacity returned. People would have responded by going out less then more.
The Covid inquiry is a stark reminder of how little politicians cared for our freedom in the pandemic; and, let’s be honest, the public weren’t too opposed to being locked up and paid to do nothing either. While much sceptical opinion has rightly been written on the scientific claims of the inquiry, liberals must also resist the lopsided utilitarian reasoning which claims numbers of lives saved is all that matters in a pandemic. Freedom matters too and we shouldn’t be afraid to say so.