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 >

We should relax the lines between the public and the private

South Korea has managed to control the virus by disseminating a phone app alerting citizens when they have passed someone infectious. Handing personal information and disclosing one's movements to the government may be the most effective solution. Proponents include Chair of the WHO Dale Fisher and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Coronavirus Government Health Lockdown United Kingdom
Matt Burgess
< (1 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. Research and consideration is now directed towards finding alternatives to national lockdowns that will equally insure the reduction of transmission rates amongst individuals.

The Argument

There are alternatives to total freedom or total lockdown that are proven to work, if we are willing to hand over our data to the government. [1] With the help of technology and tracking, it is possible to create a transparent system allowing citizens to be informed about the development in their area. This allows them to avoid possibly risky spots. For instance, the government of South Korea has launched an app that 90% of the population uses. It tracks the routes taken by infected patients and publishes them anonymously. Furthermore, infected individuals or foreign travellers have to report their symptoms to the app.[1] Individuals who have been at the same places at the same time or who are in proximity of the infected person are alerted by text messages that have no opt out function. These location-based emergency messages are supposed to create a bigger transparency for the population so that they can assess the risk of going somewhere according to precise data. In addition, this approach allows the government to centrally compile data which helps them to recognise trends and hotspots more quickly; increasing their reaction time. [2] Other countries like Germany have launched similar applications that still have to prove if they will be as effective as in South Korea. Due to bigger privacy concerns, many citizens are reluctant to use the app which would make it less efficient as it can only function with a certain rate of input by the citizens. [3]

Counter arguments

Major privacy concerns arise with the use of a tracking app. Despite the data being fairly anonymous, people might be able to identify someone in their surroundings for having the virus and use that information against them. [1] No one knows who long the private health records that are compiled in this context will be stored by the government. [4] There is the possibility of the private data to be hacked.[4] Such an app is only efficient if the emergency alerts are really taken seriously and people avoid certain areas. If the alerts are too frequent, they will lose importance and will be ignored. [1]

Proponents

Framing

In the case of an emergency, it is okay to give away personal data for the sake of increased safety.

Premises

[P1] Safety weighs higher than personal freedom [P2] Collective efforts for a common good are more important than personal rights and freedoms.

Rejecting the premises

[P1] than Personal freedom weighs higher than safety. [P2] Personal rights and freedoms are more important than collective efforts for a common good.

References

  1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/korea-smartphone-apps-tracking-coronavirus-won-stop-buzzing-200408074008185.html
  2. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52681464
  3. https://www.dw.com/en/loved-or-loathed-how-germanys-coronavirus-tracking-app-is-faring/a-53959165
  4. https://www.brusselstimes.com/opinion/108594/corona-apps-south-korea-and-the-dark-side-of-digital-tracking/
This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 14:46 UTC

Explore related arguments