KW: Foreward by Alan Hamilton. A Must Read article for all of us in Lockdown, whilst our businesses and personal incomes are being laid to waste amidst a massive increase in government spending of borrowed money. I’ve included a transcript of that interview below but by way of prefacing remarks, I want to say; what bothers me about the global response to this pandemic is that most nations within the G20 financial orbit (with a few notable exceptions) have defaulted to a single solution: a society-wide lock-down together with truly unprecedented government expenditure and indebtedness.
Is it really the case that nation-wide lockdowns are the only (or even the most appropriate) solution to this problem? In countries where the mortality rates are very low, Singapore, Japan and South Korea, proper public health measures appear to have been far more effective than total lockdowns. The economic consequences of a public health response to the crisis, rather than a political lockdown are entirely different and the long-term social consequences will be too.
While President Trump is busying himself with questions and accusations about who is to blame for this crisis, a better question might be to ask; “Who benefits from the solution?”. The truly unimaginable debts that governments are quickly racking up around the world will be owed to someone. Who will that be? Much like the public remorse felt four or five years after our invasion of Iraq (to rid the country of WMD that turned out not to exist) will we be asking ourselves in just a few years’ time, “Who’s idea was the lock-down?
The idea that a total shut-down of the economy is an appropriate response to a disease pandemic is an extreme view. We need to see this for what it is. This is political extremism. This is not a normal, rational, measured, participative response to a crisis. This is another example of TINA (there is no alternative) politics. We should be very wary of such claims and look closely at who is making them.
On New Year’s Eve in 2019, while you were having drinks with some friends, which of you would have believed that within 3 months all of us (and half the world besides) would be living under medical martial law? Our situation is an extreme one and the idea that there are not hundreds of other actions that could be taken collectively to deal with this crisis in a responsible and efficient manner is simply ludicrous. It appears that all rational thinking at the social level has ceased. Panic has set in and the merchants of fear are in control. The long-term consequences of this will be dire – they already are for the million-plus Australians who have so far lost their livelihoods. And the longer the lockdown continues, the worse things will get.
It’s time we started asking hard questions of our leaders; for every action proposed, we need to ask: “What alternatives have you considered?” We need to look toward model nations like Singapore, Japan and South Korea and adopt the tactics they have adopted to preserve the integrity of their economy while controlling the disease. The time for blindly following the edicts of leaders who engender panic rather than responsibility is over.
If we’re going to survive this pandemic, we’ll do so first and foremost by recovering our senses.
Lord Sumption Speaks against Hysteria-Driven Government Coronavirus Policy.
Here is a recording of the astonishing interview of Lord Sumption, a former member of the Supreme Court and last year’s Reith Lecturer, on BBC Radio 4’s World at One today , Monday 30th March 2020. It is by far the most high-powered criticism , made in public by a senior figure of considerable reputation and merit, of government policy on the corona virus. I shall be providing a transcript as soon as I can, but in the meanwhile I ask you to disseminate it as widely as possible, as I fear that other media may not do so in these strange times.
Lord Sumption interview begins at 17 minutes into BBC R4’s World At One 30th March 2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000gt59
Here is a transcript of the whole interview.
The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That’s what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don’t pause to ask whether the action will work. They don’t ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.