In the late eighteenth and nineteenth century, a grimly nihilistic economist, Thomas Malthus, became increasingly influential. Malthus believed that as the population grew, the supply of food would shrink. Accordingly, he supported the Corn Laws and criticised the Poor Laws.
Later, his ideas would be immortalised for posterity by Charles Dickens' Ebenezer Scrooge. Who refused to give anything to the poor and destitute, for "if they would rather die, they had better do it and reduce the surplus population".
I remember being introduced to Malthusianism in the sixth form. My reaction was one of cold shock. How could someone with zero human empathy have had so much influence and been so respected? But that's Toryism for you: only the strongest shall survive.
In Britain, we have a government which presided over a decade of destruction to the national health service, the social and community safety net. It seemed to do this in the sociopathic belief that immense pain, suffering and hardship would be 'good' for the poor.
Now, that government is taking things to a whole new level again. Its cold, ruthless logic is simple. Why impose lockdowns and freeze the economy when coronavirus is already all over the UK? Just let everyone catch it and build up immunity: the strongest shall survive!
It always takes a certain level of sociopathy to be a true Tory believer. Sometimes, I come across right wingers on here who are certainly rational... but coldly so. Clinically so, to a quite alarming degree Without a shred of empathy in their whole bodies.
Such individuals love to ridicule and disdain the 'do-gooding left' - because caring about anyone other than their own families seems genuinely to offend them. "There is no such thing as society". Well: that theory is about to be tested as never before.
Coronavirus presents all governments with the hardest of choices. You can either mitigate its economic impact or its human impact. You cannot do both. Most governments delayed fatally, before opting for option 2. UK has chosen option 1 - and people should be aware what that means
What that means is because of lack of capacity caused directly by a decade of austerity, the NHS will prioritise only the most serious cases.
What it means, in many ways, is people and their families being left to fend for themselves.
What it means, in many ways, is people and their families being left to fend for themselves.
And what it also means is, just as invading Iraq turned it into a breeding ground for terrorists, Britain is openly, willingly, about to turn itself into a Coronavirus petri dish.
What's the point of other governments taking such stringent measures when UK will let it roam free?
What's the point of other governments taking such stringent measures when UK will let it roam free?
But the UK might counter, with at least some justification: "What's the point of you taking such stringent measures when the moment you lift them, the infection rate will start going through the roof again?"
To be sure: it's impossible to see how those measures last many months.
To be sure: it's impossible to see how those measures last many months.
But much more than many months will be required to keep the spread under control until a vaccine finally arrives. That won't happen for a year to 18 months.
So yes, there is a logic to the British approach: herd immunity and all that. But the human cost will be indescribable.
So yes, there is a logic to the British approach: herd immunity and all that. But the human cost will be indescribable.
So serious will the cost be that I'm nigh on certain the UK will end up reversing course. This sort of cold, hard-nosed theory is nothing when set against human reality; nothing when set against body bags, families and communities being devastated up and down the land.
More than that: I think populations are far more likely to give their governments the benefit of the doubt when they see them taking drastic action to protect them, as in Italy right now. Britain's lack of action will take mistrust in politicians and experts to a whole new level.
There are no easy options here. Every choice is fraught. The world is heading for recession, perhaps even depression; this crisis may last 2 months or, until a vaccine arrives, at least two successive winters.
Can the UK possibly control the peak of this virus until summer?
Can the UK possibly control the peak of this virus until summer?
Can the NHS possibly cope with the numbers of cases it's likely to encounter in a horribly short space of time?
And will Britain finally, once and for all, become a true global pariah - as it does next to nothing, while all around it do everything they damn well can?
And will Britain finally, once and for all, become a true global pariah - as it does next to nothing, while all around it do everything they damn well can?
Not banning public events is ridiculous. Not closing schools is ridiculous. Not even encouraging the population to plan ahead and giving it proper details on the science is pure negligence. Trusting in the public to somehow handle it all fine is, well, a quite enormous risk.
Because when only a small number of people take matters into their own hands and raid the shelves for everything, everyone else suffers.
When people go around coughing merrily away, not covering their mouths, not washing their hands, everyone else suffers.
When people go around coughing merrily away, not covering their mouths, not washing their hands, everyone else suffers.
This is the response of a government which has deliberately de-funded and shrunk the state and left itself incapable of taking the measures necessary. It doesn't deserve to succeed - but for the sake of the poor, benighted people, we can only hope that somehow, it does.
