What is happening China demonstrates the societal perils of possibly the most extreme COVID-19 #EmergencyState worldwide - with no obvious end point and hugely intrusive restrictions, quarantine and surveillance.
As I describe in my book, China's lockdowns were the model for the rest of the world, praised in the first months of the pandemic by e.g. the WHO and even the Pope. Though in fact they tended to be more extreme, reflecting the authoritarian nature of the Chinese govt.
China has used e.g. mass surveillance, enforced quarantine of individuals in camps, extreme enforcement. But the policy has been so successful in suppressing the virus that the govt (by its own logic) is now stuck in a perpetual state of ongoing restrictions.
If it relaxes restrictions it faces a potentially catastrophic number of cases and deaths, with most unprotected by previous infection or vaccination. But even in authoritarian society it cannot continue enforcing the Emergency State indefinitely as can be seen from protests.
As I say in#EmergencyState, not all lockdowns are the same and indeed neither are all Emergency States. It is better to compare particular restrictions and - most importantly - enforcement. Enforcement in an authoritarian state is very different.
In every COVID society governments had to balance liberty and safety. After a couple of years, most societies have decided that COVID is no longer enough of a threat to justify asking people to "lend" their liberty. China is different and next few months will be hugely important.
More in #EmergencyState - I do hope to update it at some point soon to include more international comparisons and China is a hugely important one. amazon.co.uk/dp/1847927467/…
There is also an irony in China's situation - China managed to do what no other society did, though many tried - it has suppressed COVID. Nowhere else managed this, restrictions+lockdowns etc. only ever managed to slow its spread and give time for vaccines to be developed...
China is now facing the consequences of its "success". Though, I would argue that in places like the UK we never really expected to suppress COVID because as harsh as restrictions were they were nothing like in China (nor could they have been). Ultimately, though...
... the PM and Patrick Vallance were criticised for referring to herd immunity as a policy option in actual fact that was a shadow policy all along, because there was no prospect of suppressing COVID and partially maintaining freedoms (quote from #EmergencyState)
And in fact we now live in a society where practically everyone has had COVID, many more than once, though 200k+ have also died. China is still where we were in eg. mid-2020. So it is now faced with perpetual extreme restrictions or some other choice.
Yes absolutely - the govt seemed to think that it was restrictions or nothing (to be a bit simplistic but that was certainly the public debate)
It's back!
For various very important technical reasons (I didn't renew my Google subscription) my table of COVID regulations went offline.
I have put it back up on a new link
I think still the only easy+free way of finding out what laws applied when docs.google.com/document/d/1dn…
It now also has an extra column which shows when each regulation was debated and links to Hansard docs.google.com/document/d/1dn…
This is interesting on whether Scotland is entitled to a right to self-determination in international law - answer: no
I also think it's good that the Supreme Court has opened the door to more references on bills before they have been introduced. Generally, though it adds to the SC's case load, I like the idea of references which will achieve legal certainty earlier in the legislative process...
Thank you for reviewing the book - although you disagree with my approach, I am happy to post in the spirit of discussion. Essentially makes the same point Lord Sumption did - if you're not going to be anti-lockdown, there is not much point in writing about lockdown laws.
The answer to that critique is in the book itself - and is one I thought people would make. It is interesting that Yuan does not say what he would have wanted the book to say about lockdowns - though that seems to be fizzing in the background.
At least Lord Sumption - who thought the points I made about the democratic failures were important (as opposed to essentially trivial as Yuan suggests) - made the clear point that he thought I should have agreed with him that lockdowns were unjustified telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-…
Since they introduced the news feed by algorithm Twitter has, for me, had a dual function - it's great for sharing information and discussion, but also has amplified argument and controversy, I assume for a kind of entertainment/spectacle. I have always tried to focus on...
... the former function and seen the latter one as kind of occupational hazard of being on the platform. My worry about @elonmusk's twitter is that it will focus on the argument and controversy at the expense of the other function. But it is naive to think that this is...
... something he has introduced. I hope that the balance will remain manageable but I have noticed (I don't know if it's post-Musk - I doubt it to be honest) that when I scan the newsfeed it seems to be full of things which aggravate me, as if taunting me to get involved...
Lovely review of Lord Woolf’s memoirs by @JoshuaRozenberg - you can always trust Joshua to bring out the Jewish interest - this factoid is an amazing credit to the UK’s Jewish community of c300k people edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/p…
This reminds me of my favourites, Jewish UK legal story, which is that when Lord Neuberger was appointed Supreme Court president, the Israeli newspaper @haaretzcom ran a story that a senior Rabbi has been appointed to the Supreme Court…
… but they realised after an hour or so that they had confused David Neuberger with his sister-in-law, Rabbi Julia Neuberger. I still hugely regret not taking a screenshot of the story!
I mean, I have an account, and I sent one toot, or twerp, or whatever it’s called there, but I haven’t logged on since because I just don’t want to be addicted to different social networks which do the same thing
Obviously, if it gets to a point where the action is there not here, I will move, but at present not for me