covid

According to Oxford epidemiologists Sunetra Gupta, 68% of the UK population have already been infected with the virus and are therefore immune. In this case, the lockdown is doing unnecessary harm to our economy and our lives.

Coronavirus overwhelmingly affects those with severe underlying conditions, whose health was already in jeopardy. Making hardline policy decisions to simply extend the low quality lives of sickly individuals comes at the price of economic destruction. It is wrong to prioritise an infirm minority, when the repercussions could devastate quality of life for generations. Proponents include German MEP Jens Gieseke and Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Guttenberg Institute Professor Sucharit Bhakdi leads this charge, pointing to the vast cleavages between predicted and realised corona death rates. Underlying this position is the point that lockdown is based on phoney data and bad science.

With conflicting information spouted from country to country and leader to leader, it is impossible to trust anyone claiming authority on the subject.

Amsterdam has already announced it plans to introduce Oxford University's so-called "doughnut model" to rehabilitate its economy. Critically, this viewpoint sees lockdown as necessary, but longterm economic damage as optional. It suggests current growth models are outdated, and that contemporary ideas, which consider social factors and environmental health, are the way to avoid a post-pandemic depression. This model is largely championed by third sector players, including Oxfam, who see it as a route to longterm sustainable development.

The implications of Neil Ferguson's model are clear: lockdown or death on a catastrophic scale. It was Ferguson's forecasting of up to 500,000 UK deaths which resulted in lockdown. If this is the most accurate model we have, it is imperative that we trust it to guide us.

As societies become more inward-facing, the nation will become more important to international relations.

Professor Neil Ferguson's model has a shocking record of misinformation and flawed analysis. During the UK foot and mouth crisis, he also contributed defective models. For these reasons, we should disregard his predictions and end the lockdown.

With the economy in a state of flux, many workers will have to return to work if lockdown is relaxed. This situation is dangerous when there is no known cure, and businesses do not have to make guarantees on worker safety. Ultimately, people will be forced to risk death to stay financially afloat due to a situation beyond their control. Proponents include the UK Labour Party and trade unions.

The world is falling apart, and having faith might be the only thing to get people through.

The coronavirus model to come out of Carnegie Mellon predicts that regardless of lockdown, the virus will create panic and kill huge numbers. Professor Wesley Pegden's model shows that unless large numbers of people are exposed at one time, lifting measures will cause the same harm as keeping them in place. In which case, why not end lockdown now?

The success of Wuhan's reopening is widely seen as down to their large-scale screening programme. Given the scant and unreliable reports of reinfection, many argue those not at risk should be given 'health passports'. These would allow the gradual reopening of society to those deemed safe by the government. This group believe that it is not right to deny freedom where the individual poses no harm to themselves or others. Proponents include the pharmaceutical lobby, with UK biometrics firm Onfido and Swiss drugmaker Roche already submitting patents for their design.

UK Premier Boris Johnson is fully representative of this position. Having spent his career deriding state interference in personal affairs, the pandemic finally pushed him to introduce the lockdown. The driving idea here is that wherever you stand on the role of the state, during this extraordinary period of global uncertainty, it must assume control of its people to guide us safely forward. Proponents include UK Business Secretary Alok Sharma.

Advice from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Business says there is only one way to minimise deaths in the reopening of the country: in phases based on individual vulnerability. The government must decide which groups are immune to the disease and phase normality back.

South Korea has managed to control the virus by disseminating a phone app alerting citizens when they have passed someone infectious. Handing personal information and disclosing one's movements to the government may be the most effective solution. Proponents include Chair of the WHO Dale Fisher and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

This group understands that there are multiple workable options to ending lockdown. And critically, that each will have a unique transformative effect on society. They argue that relaxing lockdown comes at a price: individual freedom. Methods that have worked in other countries rely on the government handling and tracking citizens' data. Many see this, and suggested initiatives such as Matt Hancock's "test, track, trace" app as the population complicit in the building of a surveillance state. Proponents include International Editor of the News Statesman Jeremy Cliffe.

The fundamental role of the state is to protect its citizens. It is an aberration that anyone might argue economic growth should take precedence. As Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty has said, the only viable way out of this crisis is the discovery of a vaccine or a drug that will reduce transmission rates and impact. Any relaxation is dangerous, with the only known outcome being avoidable deaths.