A year of Covid-19 (1) – following ‘the science’

On 20 April last year the lead story in ‘The Irish Times’ was a report of research led by an Irish scientist that there may have to be repeated waves of Covid-19 epidemics until enough of the population is infected to provide herd immunity.  At best there would be three more infection cycles before 60 per cent was infected, enough for immunity.

It reported intense debate on the subject, with World Health Organisation epidemiologists warning that there was no proof yet that having the infection would confer immunity for a significant period of time.  Later, when it was apparent that immunity did occur, the response was that the level of antibodies recorded in previously infected cases declined more or less rapidly so that immunity would also decline.  This however did not take account of the body’s reduced need for higher levels and its newly acquired capacity to ramp up again if required; it also did not take account of the role of T-cells in fighting infection.

The point however, is that herd immunity was not dismissed as beyond the pale and was not considered a euphemism for mass murder.  In fact, as the link to the debate below records, herd immunity is not so much a strategy as an outcome, the inevitable outcome of defeating the pandemic.  That it has been understood as anything else illustrates the impairment of critical thought that has accompanied the physical restrictions introduced by lockdown.

Throughout the pandemic, governments in Ireland, Britain and elsewhere have been keen to demand that people follow ‘the science’ (as they put it), backed up by certain scientists or doctors, usually on the state payroll, who have given authority to government policy even when it is sometimes reported that they don’t agree with it.

The appeal to authority, the idea that there is one ‘science’ with one rational direction available to policy makers, the unwillingness to debate, and repeated charges of lack of transparency; all these are very far from any scientific approach.  The debate here on what the correct approach should be is an example of what has not been presented to populations.  The effects of this have been many and not always acknowledged.

I recently had a disagreement on Facebook with a supporter of a ‘Zero-Covid’ strategy, who refused to accept our differences were political, claiming that there was a psychological issue involved with my approach (along with some other remarks I have committed to amnesia).  The alternative that I argued, of focused protection of the vulnerable and opposition to generalised lockdown, was not received as a legitimate one to be considered, but simply one to be condemned and damned as so mistaken as to be the product of some psychological imperfection.

What was remarkable was that the principal issue facing the world was argued as something above, beyond or otherwise disassociated from politics.  Marxists, and this guy is one of long standing, are supposed to base their ideas on the reality that science, morality and all aspects of human behaviour are permeated with politics.  Science has its political aspects and the actions of the Government and state obviously does, especially when they involve drastic restrictions on human activity.

So, to regard Covid-19 as a non-political issue is absurd.  That such an argument could arise on social media is not at all surprising since everything under the sun appears on it.  In this case however the response is not uncommon, and is a mirror reflection of the approach taken by almost all Governments, which is to deny legitimacy to any questioning of their policies.  We can see this clearly for example in the pathetic ‘opposition’ of Keir Starmer, whose only point of disagreement is that the lockdown policy of the Government has been implemented incompetently and incompletely.

The policy of inducing fear into the population is ably assisted by a willing media seeking the simple and the sensational, through stressing the lethal nature of the virus; repetition of statistics on cases, hospitalisation numbers and patients in intensive care; the numbers with ‘long-Covid’; the prominence given to sufferers among the young, and of course the rising number of deaths.

This goes along with a determined policy of down-playing the specificity of those most under threat, and claims that the virus is either out of control or will utterly swamp the health service.  The fear generated has enough truth behind it to get acceptance of actions that would in normal times have generated heated opposition; including cancelled urgent cancer operations and a policy of isolation of individuals that admits that increased domestic abuse and enormous deterioration in mental health will follow.  The cumulative effect in generating fear is to dampen and discourage further the exercise of people’s critical faculties.

Instead of opposing all this, much of the left has echoed it and amplified it, as my minor Facebook argument illustrated.  This Left demands stricter and longer lockdowns and ‘zero-Covid’, i.e. no cases and no deaths from Covid.  To state that there is an alternative approach to generalised lockdown, and admit that some deaths will almost certainly result, is to damn oneself out of one’s own mouth.  How dare you advocate a policy that accepts any deaths!

We will, for the moment, leave aside the obvious truth that the current lockdown policy has abysmally failed to prevent avoidable deaths, and that the ‘Zero-Covid’ policy has yet to indicate what injury and deaths would flow from its implementation.  It has failed to admit that it would have to be enforced; that the state would have to do the enforcing and that it would have to apply much enhanced powers of coercion to attempt to achieve it.  An additional result would be to limit further the space for open debate on different approaches and alternative futures following the pandemic.

The policy of the Left has not been to encourage scientific debate but to back one element of the consensus view that lockdowns are the answer.  The problem here is that there has been far from a free debate on what the best approach to dealing with Covid-19 is and not, as the left would have it, a refusal to follow through on what is so obviously the right, or rather only, one.

These two articles, here and here, show that there is no single and unequivocal scientific approach that supports lockdown.  Rather, there is an intensely political debate within the scientific community that has suffered from, but resisted, restrictions on discussion.  The result of the attempt to impose a single approach has been the development of what has been called ‘groupthink’, censorship and self-censorship and something of a climate of fear, in which critical thought is seen as criticism of the scientific establishment, which might be damaging to the careers of those who engage in it.

The inevitable uncertainties generated by a new viral infection requires engagement with the issues that the political establishment does not believe the population can handle, something the media reinforces with its superficial treatment of every issue.  The mechanisms and apparatus that circumscribes political argument has been easily employed to narrow debate on the right approach to dealing with the pandemic.  The idea that the issues around it are non-political is, to repeat, ludicrous.

This political debate has been grossly distorted by an anti-scientific assault by the far-right, typified by the often-imbecilic antics of Donald Trump, with his alternative denial of the virus, its importance, his success in dealing with it, and his recommendation about drinking bleach.  The mass base of scientific ignorance he mobilised in the US has been reflected everywhere to a greater or lesser extent.  The effect on rational criticism of the prevalent lockdown approach has been to prejudice reception of it and create a barrier to its discussion.  Sections of the left have joined in, unwittingly contributing to the anti-scientific shut-down of rational debate.  As with so many issues, the opposition to lockdown by sections of the right, whether of the crazed anti-vaxxers or libertarian conservatives, has been the cue for some on the left to take an opposing view.

We are over a year into the pandemic, about a year since it hit Europe, and there is no excuse for lack of debate on how to deal with it. Only episodically has one taken place in Ireland and like everywhere else, any alternative to lockdown has been subject to condemnation. It has had its own share of far-right sceptics that have made the task of challenging the lockdown consensus harder; but the fact is that the policy of lockdown has failed, and the experience of the last year has proved it, which is what we will review in the next post.

Forward to part 2

1 thought on “A year of Covid-19 (1) – following ‘the science’

  1. Great piece. I would suggest that the position of the Left in supporting lockdowns is driven by a number of factors.
    1. It has lost the ability to think critically, and instead places a minus sign wherever the right places a plus sign.

    2. It is infused with catastrophism, and the idea that capitalism is and must be in its death agony. So, it is always looking for some latest catastrophe to validate this thesis, be it an economic crisis, financial crisis, environmental crisis, or here health crisis.

    3. 1 and 2 are combined in a naive belief that because they have failed to win over any sizeable number of workers to socialist ideas, the route must indeed be via some such crisis, whereby the workers will have their eyes open and overnight become class conscious revolutionaries. Any potential to turn a drama into a crisis is then seized, to try to bring about these conditions.

    4. The inability to think critically, along with the natural tendency of the sects to isolate themselves in their bunkers means that any critical discussion is out, and only to be responded to by invective, slur and censorship.

    Looking at the events over the last year. The response of the left, as with the opportunists in the social-democratic parties was to look at the positions taken by Trump and Johnson et al, and simply to adopt the diametrically opposite position. Trump/Johnson wanted to dismiss the virus, and opposed lockdowns, some of the UK scientists even talked about the need to develop herd immunity, so the opportunists and the Left took the opposite position demanding a harsh lock down immediately. The concept of herd immunity long accepted by scientists was made into the demand of the devil for social cleansing, and social Darwinism. Completely absurd and anti-scientific, in the name of short-term opportunism.

    The opportunists also want lockdown, because any short-term crisis reflects badly on the government of the day, and so they think translates into votes for them. They, of course, do not want any really bad crisis that would undermine capitalism itself, and which they might have to pick up if governments fall. Not so the left. The left is continually hankering after such a catastrophe that might bring about a collapse, because, in effect they abandoned Marxism long ago in favour of Sismondist moral socialism, and the belief that anything that holds back or better turns back capitalist development is somehow good. Its why they also favour things like Brexit, or Scottish independence. Again complete reactionary nonsense, and totally anti-Marxist.

    When Johnson changed tack and implemented harsh lockdown, the opportunists could only bleat that it was not harsh enough, not efficient enough, as they had nowhere to go. Arguing against lockdowns was now not an option, though, the opportunists in the regions, where they were in charge, and where the economic and social effects of lockdowns were being felt, did try to do that, did try to get their region in lower tiers, and so on. The left still praying for a complete economic and social breakdown, pressed for the lockdowns to be harsher still, for the economy to be brought to a halt, enforced by an authoritarian police state. What a shower they are.

    And, when the actual scientific data was presented to challenge these conclusions, then they responded not with reasoned argument but with the usual abuse and invective that has come to be expected. The manipulation of data was worthy of a 1950’s Stalinist economist, “proving” the continued validity of Varga’s Law. Back in April last year, I challenged on his blog, the claim by Michael Roberts that unless Sweden introduced lockdowns, it was about to see deaths soar to 65,000. A totally ridiculous claim from someone who for the last ten years on his blog URL “The Next Recession” has repeatedly – and wrongly – forecast that the world was about to enter a new big recession. Well, of course, lockdowns, have at last made sure that even this stopped clock told the right time once in its life. A year on, with Sweden not having introduced lockdowns, its deaths are still nowhere near 65,000. In fact they are just 10,000, and for months during the Summer, new deaths had been reduced essentially to zero. Michael Roberts responded by blocking my comments. Its obvious why.

    The hankering after a catastrophe is seen in the repeated demands to close schools despite the fact that all the science shows that kids are not affected by the virus, and given that most teachers and school staff are not in the vulnerable section of the population, nor are they. For those that are, measures to deal with that are easy, such as putting workers on permanent sick leave with full pay, and so on. But, closing schools permanently is way of emphasising the crisis, and of forcing other workers to stay home to look after kids. It means a whole generation of kids who will have had inadequate education, no bad thing if your goal is also to try to wreck the economy for years to come.

    In the main these are demands and positions taken by largely middle class people the effects of which will impact on working-class people, mostly the poorest in society, and without having th desired radicalising effect those that support them desire. On the contrary, all history shows that economic crises lead to a rise in the forces of reaction not revolution.

    The idea of zero-Covid is the logical conclusion of those positions, but it is absurd. So, if COVID zero is reached, what then. Should we also demand zero-flu, because, currently, flu is killing more younger people than is COVID? Every year, in Britain, 8-20,000 people die from flu, so should we just not remain closed down to prevent these deaths? What about zero cancer? Should we enforce a ban on smoking for everyone, keep industry closed down so that no one comes in contact with carcinogenic materials, and so on?

    What about zero road deaths? Should we demand everyone stay in doors for ever more to avoid being hit by a bus, or killed in a car accident. The demand for zero COVID is an absurd demand for life to be zero risk, which is an impossibility. In nothing else is this attitude taken, and instead the response of the labour movement has always been to manage the risk, and to raise the demand for workers control and inspection so to do. Its an indication of just how far these middle class revolutionaries are from reality, and from Marxsim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.