As England enters a second national lockdown, it is essential that we take the opportunity to plan for an emerging future of endemic disease and environmental instability. For those on the left, there are clear and immediate demands to be made, centred on the “zero-Covid” strategy put forward by Independent Sage. This package of measures should be adopted by government immediately: it includes effective, publicly owned and managed testing and tracing, and proper financial support for all who need it, closing the significant gaps in current provision. But zero Covid can only be an emergency response to the first phase of this pandemic. As rising infections globally make plain, Covid-19 will require continual vigilance and, beyond that, changes to how we live and work.
While mass vaccination is vital, it will not be a magic wand that returns life to pre-Covid normality. We are likely to have to learn to live with this virus in some form. And with the number of epidemics increasing globally as we continue to put pressure on the natural environment, from intensive agriculture to climate change, Covid-19 will not be the last pandemic we face. These facts may be sobering, but they should also focus our minds on something that’s gone missing from the conversation: a hopeful, transformative vision of what comes next.
First, this means progressive forces should avoid getting into a situation where they are relying on or even being “pro” lockdowns. The costs are simply too high, and are likely to prove to be unsustainable. The impact on GDP, or the rise in the deficit, are not the best ways to understand this cost: government borrowing costs for the UK are at world-historic lows, even becoming negative earlier this year, and there are as yet no barriers to government raising the funds needed to pay for furlough and other protections. Those currently trying to create panic about rising government debt are economic illiterates.
Instead, the costs of lockdown should be understood in terms of its severe impact on mental health, or the sharp rise in reported domestic violence cases, or the risks to children’s education. As the World Health Organization says, lockdown measures “can have a profound negative impact on individuals, communities and societies”, with disadvantaged groups such as those already living in poverty the worst affected. Lockdown may be necessary, in the WHO’s words, “to buy time”, but not more.
These real costs are feeding into public attitudes. Support for the new round of measures remains high, but the success of the first lockdown depended – critically – on public support, not coercion. But that support is starting to fray as a minority of MPs turn against the measures, and a nascent protest movement gathers pace. It is no wonder Nigel Farage has sniffed this opportunity to rebrand the Brexit party as an anti-lockdown outfit. When we leave this lockdown, public consent for any future stay-at-home orders may well be significantly harder to find – even if they again become necessary.
Progressives and the left should not become trapped by arguing only for repeated lockdowns. We cannot shy away from thinking about how to manage a world where Covid-19 is endemic and environmental instability worsening. There are intimations of the pro-virus, rightwing arguments for this new world alreadywith talk of herd immunity, and letting the strongest survive. If your job isn’t “viable” any more, or you can’t afford to self-isolate – well, who are you to argue not only with the verdict of the free market, but nature itself?
We can do better than this. A future constrained by pandemic risk and environmental instability does not have to be one where all the injustices of existing society are radically worsened. There are ways we can reshape how we live and work that offer socially just adaptations to this new world. Some things are obvious: we need more slack built in to our public services, particularly health and social care, instead of chasing narrow definitions of “efficiency”. We must increase education spending to allow for social distancing in our schools.
But some of it must be more radical. If our shopping is switching online, can we redesign our high streets to create new public spaces? Additional space is all the more necessary if social distancing has to be maintained. If working from home becomes the norm for millions, can we repurpose underused office space? The thinktank Autonomy has published innovative proposals for workplaces in such a world, reformatting standard office design and building in safer social contact. If not all work can be conducted from home, can we at least reduce the hours we have to spend at work? The use of furlough and part-time working schemes, unthinkable until this year, could move us towards that. If instability is endemic, can we make the case for a universal basic income to provide meaningful security? If we are entering a “90% economy”, with future growth permanently constrained, can we learn to use measures other than GDP growth for economic success – just as Jacinda Ardern’s government has moved towards in New Zealand?
Our future is not going to be the one we might have wanted. We have crossed too many natural boundaries and unleashed too many monsters. But confronting the reality of the future we now face is an essential first step to recovering hope.