How do we think about the UK lockdown debate?

Public health supersedes any other consideration during the pandemic

Question: How do we think about the UK lockdown debate?
Position‹3 of 5›: The authoritarian position, or 'Do not lift lockdown!'
Argument1 of 5›: Public health supersedes any other consideration during the pandemic

The fundamental role of the state is to protect its citizens. It is an aberration that anyone might argue economic growth should take precedence. As Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty has said, the only viable way out of this crisis is the discovery of a vaccine or a drug that will reduce transmission rates and impact. Any relaxation is dangerous, with the only known outcome being avoidable deaths.

The argument

There is no question of comparing the value of the nation's health against economic growth. The two are incomparable. Lives are more important than cash. The state has a responsibility towards preserving the lives of its citizens more than protecting the economy. If governments were to reopen the economy so soon, the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths would skyrocket. Most workplaces simply cannot guarantee 6 feet of social distancing for all employees. Minimum wage workers will be the most impacted by such working conditions. Since most of them lack adequate insurance or health literacy, death rates among them would surge upwards. The only time it would be safe to reopen the economy is when a vaccine or effective treatment against the disease is found. At the Imperial College of London, 300 people have already signed up to test a newly developed vaccine. Volunteers are scheduled to get 2 shots every 4 weeks for an undetermined amount of time. These trials are proof that there is hope for a medical breakthrough. So, for the time being, it is wise to stay still and remain in quarantine.

Premises

[P1]The state's duty to preserve citizens' lives outweighs its interest in protecting economic growth. [P2] Lifting lockdown before a vaccine or effective treatment exists would cause infections and deaths to surge, especially among low-wage workers who cannot safely distance. [P3] A medical breakthrough is plausibly on the horizon, making continued quarantine a tolerable wait rather than an indefinite sacrifice. [C] Therefore, the lockdown should not be lifted, because public health supersedes any other consideration during the pandemic.

Counter-arguments

If reopening the economy is delayed any more than it already is, there are going to be devastating consequences. Unemployment in the UK has risen from 3.8% to 10%. It is predicted that if the lockdown ends within 3 months, then the economy can still recover and unemployment can gradually drop. But, if the economy remains closed, then many businesses will simply incur too many expenses and would have to shut down. Shutting down their businesses would also mean firing many of their employees. Reopening the economy with proper and strict public health guidelines is the best way to go.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise declares the two incomparable and then compares them. Economic collapse is not simply 'cash': lost income, unemployment and deferred treatment carry mortality of their own, so the trade-off is between health outcomes rather than between health and money. [Rejecting P2] Workplace risk is not uniform, and the low-paid workers the premise names are also those least able to work from home and least cushioned by a prolonged closure. That points towards targeted protection rather than a blanket rule. [Rejecting P3] Waiting for a vaccine was, when this was written, waiting on an unknown date. Enrolment in an early trial is not a timetable, and a policy that ends only on an uncertain event is not the bounded wait the premise describes.

Proponents cited

Simon Emeny
“Think of the practical problems of going to the loo, being served at the bar, a plate of food at your table. Also few people would want to come. It would mean our revenue would be down by as much as 80%, but our costs would go up, so it's actually more catastrophic to open under socially distant guidelines than it is being closed down.”
Layla McCay
“Without a test and trace system that is consistently robust across the whole country and effective at reaching people where the disease is particularly prevalent in a timely manner, we risk a second peak that could seriously endanger public health and put the NHS in the path of a wave of infections that could overwhelm it.”
Philip Hammond
“We’ve got to start reopening the economy and I think the sensible compromise is to reopen it around a set of conditions which assume that, for the time being, we are coexisting with this virus rather than conquering it.”