How do we think about the UK lockdown debate?

The lockdown solves a problem of private and social cost

Question: How do we think about the UK lockdown debate?
Position‹4 of 5›: The collective coordination state
Argument: The lockdown solves a problem of private and social cost

A lockdown provides a subtle means of motivating individuals to bear a social cost and engage in solidarity. The lockdown may be lifted as less invasive means of coordination become available.

The argument

This argument treats the lockdown as a solution to a coordination problem rather than as a purely medical instrument. Societies often act in self-interest after weighing the social costs, and with an abstract threat like a viral pandemic it can be challenging to motivate the public to bear the costs of preventing the spread of the disease. The costs of restraint are immediate, personal and certain; the benefit is diffuse, shared and invisible when it works. Any individual weighing the two privately will tend to discount a benefit that mostly accrues to other people. A lockdown changes what is being weighed. With one in place, it limits the perceived social cost of individual action against the spread of the virus: the public no longer has to weigh the costs of social distancing, avoiding large gatherings and travel, because those decisions are no longer theirs to make case by case. Without a lockdown, the situation still provides the illusion of choice in how individuals respond to the pandemic, despite many social behaviours risking further transmission of the virus — an illusion, on this argument, because the consequences of each private choice fall on others rather than on the chooser. The justification is therefore about the limits of persuasion. Politicians, scientists and the press are limited in their ability to motivate the public to take action rhetorically; exhortation asks each person to volunteer a cost that only pays off if enough strangers volunteer it too. A lockdown creates a more natural path to social coordination in the public health response by removing that calculation from the individual altogether and making the collective outcome the default rather than the hoped-for aggregate of private decisions. The trade-off is acknowledged rather than denied. While it may subvert the individual interests of many, proponents hold that it is necessary to ensure that public health is maintained.

Context

Without a catalyst, it is difficult to encourage individuals to take collective action in the broader interest of society. A lockdown provides the motivation needed for the majority of citizens to act in the interest of public health.

Premises

[P1]Societies act in self-interest after weighing social costs, and with an abstract threat like a pandemic it is hard to motivate the public to bear the cost of preventing spread. [P2] A lockdown removes the individual cost-benefit calculation and the illusion of choice, creating a natural path to social coordination that rhetoric alone cannot achieve. [C] Because the lockdown solves a problem of private and social cost, it functions as a collective coordination measure.

Counter-arguments

A lockdown may provide the utility of gaining public acceptance for a public health measure, but it is undemocratic. The people were circumnavigated in the decision to lock down the UK. Public officials never asked the people if it was what they wanted. While MPs are elected by the people to represent them, they ultimately must answer to the public. The paternalistic decision to restrict and police the movements of the public subverts their personal liberty. It displays an elitist distrust of the people and a misplaced faith in the bureaucrats that do the bidding of the most powerful.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] While a lockdown may create collective action, it subverts collective control. [Rejecting P2] The lockdown is a symptom of a technocratic elitism that does not trust the will of the people.