Over the last year Covid-19 restrictions (including lockdown) have been justified on the basis that they are intended to flatten the curve whilst a vaccine was being developed. This took roughly a year.
But now that countries are rolling out the vaccine and we can expect the most vulnerable (by age and underlying medical conditions) to be protected through vaccination in the next few months, that does now raise the question, how long can we continue to justify restrictions against those who are not deemed vulnerable, no longer wish to be restricted and are prepared to accept the risk?
Some commentators are suggesting that people might not be allowed to travel outside national borders for fear that new variants of the virus from other countries could be brought back and therefore that the hospitality sector might not be allowed to open as before until earliest after summer and latest 2022. New Zealand's prime minister has already said that the country's borders would probably stay closed to foreign visitors for the duration of the year.
For economies that rely heavily on tourism (or even those that generate significant revenues from travel such as Heathrow and Gatwick for the U.K.), this could be almost catastrophic and will eventually be felt virtually across the entire population (including through increased taxation and reduction in public spending). Even those economies that are not dependent on foreign tourism, further prolonged restrictions within their own domestic economy will precipitate unprecedented levels of business failure (retailers, restaurants, non-essential shops etc).
Governments around the world have adopted a similar rhetoric of 'we are at war against the virus'. War undoubtedly means making sacrifices at huge cost, including switching to a 'war economy', an economy in bare survival mode under which all resources are shifted to the war effort and where even virtual bankruptcy is a difficult but necessary evil.
Governments now face equally difficult policy choices. If the policy objective until now was keeping the entire population safe and public health service functional, with the vaccination program underway, how long should restrictions be allowed to continue for and at what further cost?
If we are indeed fighting a war under a war economy, let's be clear about what this means. Then the population can decide. People might be prepared to accept the consequences of restrictions for say another 6-8 months whilst the vaccine is rolled out but perhaps not beyond.
And if new variants can compromise the vaccines effectiveness and new vaccines will need to be developed to fight virus mutations, at what point should we learn to live with the virus like we previously did with flu, and those that are older and/or vulnerable, and anyone else so wishing to do so, self-isolate?
If countries impose prolonged border closures (say for a year), will it really prevent the spread of an infectious virus inside their territory when most (if not all) countries import food/goods/materials or have to create travel exceptions that can, in turn, help spread the virus? Such a policy decision is not only problematic in practice but potentially difficult for politicians (being human) to later reverse if it is then perceived as an acknowledgment of the futility and cost of the original policy.
This could become even more so as it is almost certainly impossible (due to reasons of cost and/or simply logistics) for all countries to eradicate the virus completely or fast enough too prevent new variants emerging. Are we potentially then facing the prospect of poorer countries being isolated from the rest of the world for fear that new variants will spread across borders? Or where governments close their borders and ban international travel (for a year or more), and/or restrict even domestic travel, reminiscent to a science fiction movie where 'safety' means never leaving your enclosure for fear of the post-apocalyptic outdoors?
We could be entering the most controversial phase of the whole pandemic even as countries rollout the vaccines and one where governments around the world will be required to make difficult choices. But people need to understand what the cost of keeping them 'safe' will be (economic, social and mental health), what are the potential consequences of all this and how long will the restrictions they could continue to face be for.
Admittedly there is a fear factor and people are understandably afraid but we face unprecedented challenge to our way of life never seen before in the modern era and questions need to be asked over the next months. We have already seen significant policy failures; from governments failing to shift their 'war economy' into sufficiently well-resourced isolated medical units (including temporary hospitals) to completely isolating the old and vulnerable into self-contained bubbles.
If there is one thing I have learnt over the years it is that, except in the most clear cut of cases, nothing is ever black or white. Equally, it is vitally important that as a society we do not get completely boxed into a corner paralysed by fear. All arguments on all sides need to be tested through a rational process of challenge and debate.
The views expressed in this article by the author are solely those of the author.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
