Public Policy

Coronavirus UK – A Nasty Infection But Let’s Have a Sense of Proportion

August 7, 2020 3204
wave of viruses

Are we threatened by a Second Wave of COVID-19? The prime minister seems to think so, although the scientific community is less certain. Some scientists believe COVID-19 will behave like influenza – the 1918 pandemic came in three waves and other respiratory viruses are more active in the winter. But we already know that COVID-19 is different. People are infectious before symptoms appear. Many people carry the virus without ever getting ill. Children, in particular, are rarely sick and are not ‘superspreaders’ as they are with flu. The World Health Organisation thinks there will be one wave which gradually decays into localised outbreaks. These could be contained by local efforts.

The truth is that no-one knows for sure and there will be no clear answers until next spring.

Of course the government should have a Plan B for a second wave. But this might also be a moment to ask where pandemic management is taking us.
We now know that something like 70 percent of the cases detected in the community are unlikely to develop symptoms. Of those who do, about 80 percent will not need to go near a hospital. When patients are admitted to hospital, only about 10-15 percent require intensive care.

COVID-19 was linked to about 50,000 deaths in the first 16 weeks of the UK pandemic – but about 11,000 people normally die every week. In the last five weeks, fewer people than usual have died. COVID-19 simply brought deaths forward by a few weeks or months – 80 percent of the victims already had life-limiting medical conditions.

Six months into this pandemic, we have learned that it is not going to wipe out human life on this planet. It is a nasty infection and we should never forget that every death represents a person loved by someone. But it is time for a sense of proportion. While some people become seriously ill, and a few die, most shrug it off. Nevertheless, some UK medical leaders are calling for ‘zero-Covid’, intensified controls to eliminate the infection. Some even want control measures to continue indefinitely in order to block influenza and other respiratory viruses.

These demands do not come from experienced clinicians, who know that no-one lives for ever. The only questions about death are when and how. Reasonable people might prefer longer lives to shorter ones. But they also have a right to be concerned about the quality of those lives. There is a real danger of slipping into a situation where we think health is the only purpose in life.

It is not an accident that the US Constitution gives equal weight to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ as the guiding principles for government. A concern for life and health must always be balanced with a concern to protect spaces for us to do our own thing and to define well-being in our own way. A pandemic may be an opportunity for some medical leaders to impose their ideas of how other people should live – but it does not mean they should be allowed to do so.

It is time to stop ‘following the science’ and recognize that we are making choices about the sort of society we want to live in. We must question the medical focus on health at any social or economic cost. Many other things make human lives worth living. In attempting to achieve zero-Covid, we may eradicate industry, commerce, trade, travel, arts, leisure, learning, sports, culture, liberty, and privacy. We will imprison ourselves in our homes, too scared to venture far, to mix with others, to learn from diversity, to have new experiences and discover new ideas.

We have never thought it necessary to do this with other infections. Could we live alongside the COVID-19 virus as we live with other viruses? We would have to pay a bit more tax to provide extra NHS capacity and better manage social care – which we need to do anyway. The alternative is to huddle in our homes, hide our faces from one another, and gradually grow poorer. We may prefer that – but let it be a positive choice rather than because we allowed ourselves to be frightened into compliance with the political programme of a narrow medical elite.


This article first appeared in the Sunday Express on August 2, 2020. A previous typo for the UK weekly death rate has been corrected – the original has 1,000 instead of 11,000.

Robert Dingwall is an emeritus professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University. He also serves as a consulting sociologist, providing research and advisory services particularly in relation to organizational strategy, public engagement and knowledge transfer. He is co-editor of the SAGE Handbook of Research Management.

View all posts by Robert Dingwall

Related Articles

There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma
Insights
April 15, 2024

There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma

Read Now
To Better Forecast AI, We Need to Learn Where Its Money Is Pointing
Innovation
April 10, 2024

To Better Forecast AI, We Need to Learn Where Its Money Is Pointing

Read Now
A Community Call: Spotlight on Women’s Safety in the Music Industry 
Insights
March 22, 2024

A Community Call: Spotlight on Women’s Safety in the Music Industry 

Read Now
Charles V. Hamilton, 1929-2023: The Philosopher Behind ‘Black Power’
Career
March 5, 2024

Charles V. Hamilton, 1929-2023: The Philosopher Behind ‘Black Power’

Read Now
Did the Mainstream Make the Far-Right Mainstream?

Did the Mainstream Make the Far-Right Mainstream?

The processes of mainstreaming and normalization of far-right politics have much to do with the mainstream itself, if not more than with the far right.

Read Now
SSRC Links with U.S. Treasury on Evaluation Projects

SSRC Links with U.S. Treasury on Evaluation Projects

Thanks to a partnership between the SSRC and the US Department of the Treasury, two new research opportunities in program evaluation – the Homeowner Assistance Fund Project and the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Project – have opened.

Read Now
The Use of Bad Data Reveals a Need for Retraction in Governmental Data Bases

The Use of Bad Data Reveals a Need for Retraction in Governmental Data Bases

Retractions are generally framed as a negative: as science not working properly, as an embarrassment for the institutions involved, or as a flaw in the peer review process. They can be all those things. But they can also be part of a story of science working the right way: finding and correcting errors, and publicly acknowledging when information turns out to be incorrect.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments