The ongoing Covid-19 inquiry has sparked significant debate by operating under what some critics call a one-sided premise: that preventing deaths was the sole objective during the pandemic. Writer Charles Amos contends this perspective dangerously ignores another fundamental value – personal liberty.
The Inquiry's Core Argument and a Counter-View
Recently, the official inquiry concluded that the UK government acted too slowly and with insufficient force when implementing the first lockdown in March 2020. It suggested that weaker restrictions and a lack of surveillance led to an estimated 23,000 additional deaths during the initial wave. The inquiry's judgement rests on the idea that the state's primary duty was to minimise life lost.
Charles Amos directly challenges this. He argues that the government should have prioritised upholding freedom, even if that approach resulted in a higher death toll. The alternative, he suggests, was to protect the vulnerable while allowing others to live normally.
Questioning Lockdown Efficacy and Scientific Modelling
Many people believe lockdowns should have been harsher, given the tragic total of 227,000 deaths involving Covid-19 in the UK. Amos, however, questions whether lockdowns were effective at all.
He points to a comparison of excess death rates in 2023. Britain, which endured three severe lockdowns, recorded an excess death rate of 390 per 100,000. In contrast, Sweden, which famously avoided mandatory lockdowns, had a rate of just 235 per 100,000.
Amos also highlights the inaccuracy of some scientific models, citing the SAGE forecast for the Omicron variant in winter 2021 that predicted between 600 and 6,000 daily deaths. The reality, he notes, was a peak of only 202.
A Proposed Alternative: Risk-Based Consent and Protection
Amos describes the government's widespread curtailment of freedom as reprehensible. He proposes a different model based on individual consent and acceptable risk.
He argues that people under 50, who faced a Covid infection fatality rate of just 0.035%, should have been free to interact normally. This risk, he claims, is comparable to the flu, which society routinely accepts. For those aged 50-59, the rate was 0.123%.
The vulnerable and elderly, meanwhile, could have been cocooned with state support, including stipends and home deliveries. Amos suggests this would have cost a fraction of the £140 billion spent on furlough schemes. Crucially, any elderly person wishing to accept the risk and live normally should have been free to do so, provided businesses clearly communicated the dangers.
To address potential NHS overwhelm, Amos proposes a variable Pigouvian tax on Covid treatment during peak demand. This would have incentivised people to reduce social contact when hospital resources were stretched, without resorting to a blanket lockdown.
The Covid inquiry serves as a stark reminder of the difficult balances in a crisis. While saving lives is paramount, Amos and other liberals insist that freedom matters too, and its sacrifice during the pandemic deserves greater scrutiny.
