Home Categories About
argument top image
How do we think about the UK lockdown debate? How do we think about the UK lockdown debate?
The libertarian position, or 'End lockdown now!' The libertarian position, or 'End lockdown now!'
The nanny state position, or 'Let the state look after us' The nanny state position, or 'Let the state look after us'
The authoritarian position, or 'Do not lift lockdown!' The authoritarian position, or 'Do not lift lockdown!'
The collective coordination state The collective coordination state
Test, trace, isolate, protect Test, trace, isolate, protect
Lockdown puts us on the path to totalitarian rule Lockdown puts us on the path to totalitarian rule
The state should not control the individual The state should not control the individual
The greater good must come first The greater good must come first
The UK lockdown model is false The UK lockdown model is false
Death rate predictions are rooted in lies Death rate predictions are rooted in lies
The government cannot be trusted The government cannot be trusted
Most people have already had the virus Most people have already had the virus
The pandemic will kill, lockdown or no lockdown The pandemic will kill, lockdown or no lockdown
We should relax the lines between the public and the private We should relax the lines between the public and the private
The role of the state must adapt in times of crisis The role of the state must adapt in times of crisis
Give the healthy their independence back Give the healthy their independence back
The state should end lockdown in phases The state should end lockdown in phases
We must trust Neil Ferguson's model We must trust Neil Ferguson's model
Public health supersedes any other consideration during the pandemic Public health supersedes any other consideration during the pandemic
Despot now, doughnut later Despot now, doughnut later
Lifting the lockdown will give rise to a police state, which must be avoided Lifting the lockdown will give rise to a police state, which must be avoided
Lifting lockdown forces workers to risk their lives during the pandemic Lifting lockdown forces workers to risk their lives during the pandemic
The lockdown solves a problem of private and social cost The lockdown solves a problem of private and social cost
We should stop the virus from spreading We should stop the virus from spreading
Contact tracing apps can potentially help individuals monitor their risk of exposure and transmission Contact tracing apps can potentially help individuals monitor their risk of exposure and transmission
More public health jobs would be created in the UK More public health jobs would be created in the UK
We need to support the test, trace, and isolation infrastructure We need to support the test, trace, and isolation infrastructure
Debate Mini Map

How do we think about the UK lockdown debate?
Back to question

The nanny state position, or 'Let the state look after us'

< (2 of 5) Next position >

Give the healthy their independence back

The success of Wuhan's reopening is widely seen as down to their large-scale screening programme. Given the scant and unreliable reports of reinfection, many argue those not at risk should be given 'health passports'. These would allow the gradual reopening of society to those deemed safe by the government. This group believe that it is not right to deny freedom where the individual poses no harm to themselves or others. Proponents include the pharmaceutical lobby, with UK biometrics firm Onfido and Swiss drugmaker Roche already submitting patents for their design.
Coronavirus Government Health Lockdown United Kingdom
< (3 of 4) Next argument >

Context

The global outbreak of the COVID-19 virus in early 2020 led to national and international measures of social distancing, lockdowns and quarantines. As a result, debates about the effectiveness of lockdowns progressively arose, sparking protests and questions about what parts of the population should stay in lockdown or not.

The Argument

Introducing health passports would allow those that pose no risk to others, re-entry into society.[1] Individuals that have proven immunity against COVID-19 should no longer be restricted and move around freely as they which because they do not pose any harm to anyone else. Implementing such an approach would mean that workplaces and social interactions are safer and associated to less stress and fear for those participating. A way in which this can be achieved is a so-called “immunity passport” or health passport that works with a combination of COVID-19 testing and facial recognition. A person would take a test for immunity and if the latter is proven, the person can return back to work. To make this return safe and reliable, companies like Roche and Quotient are developing antibody tests that can be easily used. [1] Once someone’s immunity is proven, the health passport could come into play. With the help of an official picture (passport, ID) the individual could show up to work and thanks to a facial recognition system connected to an app, it could be verified that it is indeed the person presenting itself that has developed immunity. Such a system would allow Britons to return to work safely and would ease the partial uptake of economic activity that has been put to a halt because of the virus. Overall, such a strategy is being presented to the UK government and ministers and could allow to develop a more targeted and efficient response to COVID-19 that goes beyond putting an entire population into lockdown.

Counter arguments

Immunity to COVID-19 is still underexplored and it might be not as long-lasting or constant in its degree amongst different individuals. As a consequence, the health passport is not an idea that should be implemented at this point. [2] Having a health passport would discriminate against people who have not developed immunity through contracting the virus. It is an approach that doesn’t promote solidarity and that could possibly encourage people to get infected in the hope to get immune and return to work. [3]

Framing

Those who cannot infect others and get infected themselves should be allowed to go back to work or attend social gatherings.

Premises

[P1] If someone does not pose harm to him/herself or others, they shouldn’t be restricted in what they can do. [P1] The individual situation of someone should determine what they are allowed to do rather than the overall situation of a community determining it for everyone.

Rejecting the premises

[P1] If someone does not pose harm to him/herself or others, they should still act in solidarity and consider the ramifications for other members of society. [P2] The individual situation of someone should not determine what they are allowed to do. The overall situation of a community should weigh higher.

References

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/03/coronavirus-health-passports-for-uk-possible-in-months
  2. https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/what-to-know/diagnosis-symptoms/immunity
  3. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31034-5.pdf

In the Wild

This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 14:47 UTC

Explore related arguments