The limits of laissez-faire… and the crisis

The news that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was admitted to hospital on foot of continuing issues from catching the virus is telling. On a human level one has to feel sympathy for him. Any accounts of the progress of the virus in some people does not suggest that it is a pleasant experience for many who catch it, even short of the worst outcomes.

On a political level one has to wonder what the implications of Johnson removed, temporarily or permanently, from office might be – consider as an example Brexit. Johnson ducks and weaves, but perhaps that is preferable to the sheer certainty of others who might come into view on the Tory side in such a context.

Then there’s a broader level again, which is the sheer recklessness of the behaviour of British government members in the last while in the face of the crisis. Johnson himself took a most curious approach in the weeks and months leading up to his own illness as outlined here in the UK Independent.

And this sort of approach, one part seeming indifference, one part bombast, one part… well, I’ll leave it to others to describe, was of a piece with a broader approach by the UK government – something akin to laissez-faire. When the advice from the WHO was to shut down and constrain social, education and economic interactions their approach was to obfuscate and delay. Party this was driven by a most strange understanding, or lack of same, of ‘herd immunity’ that as soon as the actual blindingly obvious implications of what that approach would mean in terms of stressing and likely overwhelming the NHS were aired, was was reversed, albeit far too slowly. This has had knock on effects on this island, but given the nature of population densities and such like on the island of Britain such effects were always going to be even more problematic there.

Far too often one has had the sense that the sheer scale of what is happening just hasn’t been processed by those whose role and function was to do just that. We see this in various states, and far too often it is apparent this is driven – at least in part, by denial, complacency and ideological positions that simply do not engage with reality. In essence far too much of the political response has been built around rhetoric rather than fact. And often self-serving, albeit self-destructive, rhetoric at that. Andthis is of course typical of the politics more generally of those taking this approach as evidenced time and again over recent years.

There’s no such thing as light-touch government or laissez-faire in the face of a virus that can only be pushed back by states imposing restrictions on their citizens.

In response to Mr Johnson’s coronavirus diagnosis, Professor Jonathan Ball, a professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, said: “A virus does not respect authority or position. From lowly virologists to powerful prime ministers, all of us are susceptible to infection.

“This news highlights just how easy it is for this virus to pass under the radar and spread through our communities.”