Early on in following this Covid thing, which was way back in February, as here in HK we’d been pretty much first in line after Wuhan, I worried that the “cure” would be worse than the disease. I didn’t realise then how quickly it would become politicised. Though I should have, since “One divides into two” has been something I’ve had dear to my heart since I learnt of it in China in 1976. So much so, that whenever I hear “we must all pull together”, or some such, I think “nah... not gonna happen”. And it doesn’t. Not even in a pandemic.
And so for this whole lockdown thing. Early on, it may have been necessary, if only “something to do”. But it pretty soon became apparent that it had nasty consequences in areas non-covid. Then the world divided into two: supporters of lockdowns and we lockdown sceptics. And pretty soon it got identified as Left = pro lockdown and Right = anti lockdown. Though that’s pretty simplistic as there’s bleeding into each side from each side. But close enough. (though I claim for myself to be neither left nor right, more heterodox, but that’s for another day).
Another clear division. The lockdown supporters have salaries, the lockdown sceptics are business people who have to meet a payroll. If you can work from home and receive a salary no matter what -- civil servants, politicians, media, academics -- then lockdowns can be just fine. If you have a payroll to meet, and rent to pay, and need to make a bit of profit so you to give your kids a decent education, then you’re going to be much less supportive of lockdowns (but still care for your grandma!).
I remember for us, when we set up our business here in Hong Kong in 2000, which we eventually grew to 300 staff, the whole concept of meeting that salary bill, every month, no matter what, became sacrosanct, and changed the way I looked at the world. People should not sneer at those who have to meet a payroll. They should try it themselves. And praise and admire those that do. It has seemed pretty clear to us from some time that there’s a big chasm between the pro and anti lockdown camps and that the main reason is whether you have to meet a payroll, or you get a salary.
Our local English language paper, the South China Morning Post, which I’ve often said is the best English language paper in the region, is openly pro-lockdown. It will print letters anti the lockdowns, like mine. But its editorial stance is clearly in favour, not just of controlling the virus, but a “zero virus” strategy, which we were told early on was not possible and in the pursuit of which we may just permanently ruin our economy and the lives of working age people.
Part of the pro-lockdown stance, they run today’s article from the WHO’s Dr Soumya Swaminathan. TBF to the article, she nowhere mentions “lockdown”. But the tone is all about control of the type that leads governments to lockdown. And while she says that government ought to pursue “targeted interventions”, she attacks the Great Barrington Declaration for its “focused protection” -- which does sound pretty similar to “targeted intervention", doesn’t it? So in some ways it’s a bit of a dog’s breakfast of an article, not even internally consistent. (Recalling too, that her colleague, David Navarro, just last week said “we at the WHO do not advocate lockdowns”). And ‘Lockdowns are a terrible idea’, Martin Kulldorff, Harvard epidemiologist and co-authors of the GBD.
The WHO’s Dr Soumya Swaminathan attacks the recent Great Barrington Declaration, in a piece in today’s South China Morning Post.
ADDED: what expertise do I have to offer? Why should I think I can critique a doctor from the WHO? Well, I, like the rest of you, am now an expert armchair epidemiologist. I have googled. Ergo am an expert. Covido ergo sum...
Then, consider this: Dr Swaminathan is criticising -- indeed sneering at -- an eminent group of epidemiologists at top-tier universities (Harvard, Oxford, Stanford). So, the experts are on different sides. I’m just taking a side. If it’s going to be a battle of the experts, should I follow Swaminathan, a middling bureaucrat at the muddling WHO, led by a man with no medical degree? Or follow storied professors of virology and epidemiology at world-best universities? I’ma gonna go the latter.
How one handles the virus is a political judgement. And in many countries in the world, the people, the demos, have their say in the politics. So we all have a say.
