“We are following the science.”
This sounds reassuring, doesn’t it? An assurance that policy decisions are not being plucked from thin air (we promise!), but are rather the inevitable and definitive conclusion of empirical research. But dig a little deeper and any promises of impartial/apolitical policy fit somewhere on a spectrum ranging from pallidly quixotic to downright dishonest.
There are many reasons why Johnson’s Tories would want to hide behind the opaque pane of ‘science’. Firstly, and most obviously, it provides an easy escape route; an accountability ‘eject’ button, allowing the party to circumvent any criticism of their astonishingly inept handling of this crisis. Of course we would have liked to protect the self-employed, but we were simply following the science. Has our 10pm curfew caused more harm than good? We were simply following the science.
Anybody who likes to nestle under democracy’s political umbrella ought to be shuffling awkwardly in their seat by this point. Accountability is the bedrock of democracy – America’s current shitshow is largely attributable to hyper-partisan loyalty transcending accountability. Questioning your party is the new regicide, and so accountability (and democracy) grind to a halt. Accountability could well be the protagonist in democracy’s eschatology.
Back to Boris. Rather than peering across the pond with an acute sense of unease, Mr Johnson appears to be caught in wistful reverie. If only he could do whatever he wanted and get away with it. And then it hit him. Follow the science!
A one-size-fits-all solution to justify whatever was written on the back of the cabinet fag packet this week. This ticks all of Boris’ boxes – easy, convenient, someone else’s problem.
But one senses a slight shift in the volksgeist this week. The government’s patchwork system of tiered lockdowns has been met with considerable resistance, and people are starting to question whether all of this is worth it. As lockdown’s consequences become more acute, the policy process comes under increasing scrutiny. What does the government actually mean when it says it is ‘following the science’?
There are two ‘scientific’ bases on which these decisions are being made. The first type of model which we so often hear about are the singularly focused ‘R rate’ models. Such models are inherently parochial, and examine the impact different policies will have on controlling the spread of the virus. These findings are obviously important, but fail to take into account the kaleidoscopic epiphenomena of Covid restrictions.
The economic consequences of lockdown are clear for all to see, but this is really only the tip of the iceberg. As GP’s become overloaded, cancer diagnoses have tanked which has caused the respective deaths to go through the roof. Reports of domestic abuse have shot up, and a mental health crisis is looming. Narrow ‘R-rate’ models are clearly insufficient to dictate policy decisions.
“The idea that multifaceted policy decisions can be ‘scientific’ is absolute garbage”
So this brings us to the second type of model. An all-encompassing model which seeks to provide a holistic measure of the consequences of different Covid measures. Even if such a model were to exist (I am personally extremely dubious), its very nature would by definition have to be political.
Let us assume (for the sake of argument) that such a model exists and is accurate. The model, in all its omniscience, prognosticates that a ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown would decrease the R rate by x%, but increase unemployment by y% and drag z more children under the poverty line. What do you do with such information? Numbers alone cannot tell you what to do – evaluating the relative pros and cons of these figures requires a political judgement. A human being has to decide whether poverty is a price worth paying to control the virus. The idea that multifaceted policy decisions can be ‘scientific’ is absolute garbage.
I am not using these 700 words to lambast lockdown. I am simply trying to point out that the idea of objective and scientific policy decisions is nonsense. This government needs to take ownership of its policies and acknowledge that their implementation is the consequence of human and political judgement, not mathematical diktat. Without this, there can be no scrutiny or accountability.
Big pigeon energy 