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 >

The state should end lockdown in phases

Advice from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Business says there is only one way to minimise deaths in the reopening of the country: in phases based on individual vulnerability. The government must decide which groups are immune to the disease and phase normality back.
Coronavirus Government Health Lockdown United Kingdom
Matt Hancock Paul Hunter
< (4 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

Phased recovery is the only way forward. The government must instruct us on how to come out, and when to do so, group by group.[1] As the different groups of society are exposed to different levels of risk, they should be allowed to return to a new form of normality after lockdown earlier than other groups. A collective lockdown is not the most efficient measure to take when certain parts of society have a really low risk of contracting or spreading the virus through immunity. One way to assure such an approach is through immunity testing. In the case of the UK, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has proposed the idea of an immunity passport that would allow those who have developed immunity through contracting the virus to return to work and social gatherings in a safe fashion. [2] Other approaches, like the one used by the Chinese government in the region of Hubei relies on a three coloured QR code phone application that determines if citizens can move around freely according to their health record and the places they have stayed at. This system relies on heavy exploitation of personal and private data and is thus not feasible for all countries due to data protection regulations. [3] Another approach that is adopted by many European countries like Denmark, France or Germany is the combination of social distancing with widespread testing in an attempt to stop the virus from spreading whilst slowly returning to social life. Such a model can allow to isolate only vulnerable groups that have been identified through testing and tracking rather than the entire population.[1] In any case, the introduction of a vaccine has to be awaited to assure adequate safety for a return to the pre-corona status quo. [4]

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 immunity passport is not an idea that should be implemented at this point. [5] Having an immunizy 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.[1]

Proponents

Framing

Progressive and individualised reopening approaches will prove to be the most effective.

Premises

[P1] If someone does not pose harm to him/herself or others, they shouldn’t be restricted in what they can do. [P2] 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://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/03/health/immunity-passport-coronavirus-lockdown-intl/index.html
  2. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52807414
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/business/china-coronavirus-surveillance.html
  4. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/covid-19-vaccine-only-solution-but-may-never-be-found-warns-uk-pm-johnson/story-GnM5oHPadC5lHntOSm2E8I.html
  5. https://fr.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN21Z2XM
This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 14:47 UTC

Explore related arguments