Covid-19 and the Political Utility of Fear 746

The true mortality rate of covid-19 remains a matter of intense dispute, but it is undoubtedly true that a false public impression was given by the very high percentage of deaths among those who were tested positive, at the time when it was impossible to get tested unless you were seriously ill (or a member of society’s “elite”). When only those in danger of dying could get a test, it was of course not at all surprising that such a high percentage of those who tested positive died. It is astonishing how many articles are published with the entirely fake claim that the mortality rate of Covid-19 is 3.4%, based on that simple methodology. That same methodology will today, now testing is much more widely available to those who feel ill, give you results of under 1%. That is still an overestimate as very few indeed of the symptomless, or of those with mild symptoms, are even now being tested.

The Guardian’s daily graphs of statistics since January 1 illustrate this very nicely. It is of course not in fact the case, as the graphs appear to show, that there are now vastly more cases than there were at the time of peak deaths in the spring. It is simply that testing is much more available. What the graphs do indicate is that, unless mortality rates have very radically declined, cases tested on the same basis they are tested today would have given results last spring of well over 100,000 cases per day. It is also important to note that, even now, a very significant proportion of those with covid-19, especially with mild symptoms, are still not being tested. Quite possibly the majority. So you could very possibly double or treble that figure if you were looking for actual cases rather than tested cases.

I do not believe anybody seriously disputes that there are many millions of people in the general population who had covid and survived it, but were never tested or diagnosed. That can include people who were quite badly ill at home but not tested, but also a great many who had mild or no symptoms. It is worth recalling that in a cruise ship outbreak, when all the passengers had to be compulsorily tested, 84% of those who tested positive had no symptoms.

What is hotly disputed is precisely how many millions there are who have had the disease but never been tested, which given the absence of widespread antibody testing, and inaccuracies in the available antibody tests, is not likely to be plain for some time, as sample sizes and geographical reach of studies published to date have been limited. There is no shortage of sources and you can take your pick. For what it is worth, my own reading leads me to think that this Lancet and BMJ published study, estimating an overall death rate of 0.66%, is not going to be far off correct when, in a few years time, scientific consensus settles on the true figure. I say that with a certain caution. “Respectable” academic estimates of global deaths from Hong Kong flu in 1968 to 70 range from 1 million to 4 million, and I am not sure there is a consensus.

It is impossible to discuss covid-19 in the current state of knowledge without making sweeping assumptions. I am going here to assume that 0.66% mortality rate as broadly correct, which I believe it to be (and if anything pessimistic). I am going to assume that 70% of the population would, without special measures, catch the virus, which is substantially higher than a flu pandemic outbreak, but covid-19 does seem particularly contagious. That would give you about 300,000 total deaths in the United Kingdom, and about a tenth of that in Scotland. That is an awful lot of dead people. It is perfectly plain that, if that is anything near correct, governments cannot be accused of unnecessary panic in their responses to date.

Whether they are the best responses is quite another question.

Because the other thing of which there is no doubt is that covid-19 is an extremely selective killer. The risk of death to children is very small indeed. The risk of death to healthy adults in their prime is also very marginal indeed. In the entire United Kingdom, less than 400 people have died who were under the age of 60 and with no underlying medical conditions. And it is highly probable that many of this very small number did in fact have underlying conditions undiagnosed. Those dying of coronavirus, worldwide, have overwhelmingly been geriatric.

As a Stanford led statistical study of both Europe and the USA concluded

People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon. Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic.

The study concludes that for adults of working age the risk of dying of coronavirus is equivalent to the risk of a car accident on a daily commute.

I should, on a personal note, make quite plain that I am the wrong side of this. I am over 60, and I have underlying heart and lung conditions, and I am clinically obese, so I am a prime example of the kind of person least likely to survive.

The hard truth is this. If the economy were allowed to function entirely normally, if people could go about their daily business, there would be no significant increase in risk of death or of life changing illness to the large majority of the population. If you allowed restaurants, offices and factories to be be open completely as normal, the risk of death really would be almost entirely confined to the elderly and the sick. Which must beg the question, can you not protect those groups without closing all those places?

If you were to open up everything as normal, but exclude those aged over 60 who would remain isolated, there would undoubtedly be a widespread outbreak of coronavirus among the adult population, but with few serious health outcomes. The danger lies almost entirely in spread to the elderly and vulnerable. The danger lies in 35 year old Lisa catching the virus. She might pass it on to her children and their friends, with very few serious ill effects. But she may also pass it on to her 70 year old mum, which could be deadly.

We are reaching the stage where the cumulative effect of lockdown and partial lockdown measures is going to inflict catastrophic damage on the economy. Companies could survive a certain period of inactivity, but are coming to the end of their resilience, of their financial reserves, and of effective government support. Unemployment and bankruptcies are set to soar, with all the human misery and indeed of deleterious health outcomes that will entail.

There is no social institution better designed than schools for passing on a virus. The fact that schools are open is an acknowledgement of the fact that there is no significant danger to children from this virus. Nor is there a significant danger to young adults. University students, the vast, vast majority of them, are not going to be more than mildly ill if they catch coronavirus. There is no more health need for universities to be locked down and teaching virtually, than there would be for schools to do the same. It is a nonsense.

The time has come for a change in policy approach that abandons whole population measures, that abandons closing down sectors of the economy, and concentrates on shielding that plainly defined section of the population which is at risk. With this proviso – shielding must be on a voluntary basis. Elderly or vulnerable people who would prefer to live their lives, and accept that there is currently a heightened risk of dying a bit sooner than might otherwise be expected, must be permitted to do so. The elderly in particular should not be forcefully incarcerated if they do not so wish. To isolate an 88 year old and not allow them to see their family, on the grounds their remaining life would be shortened, is not necessarily the best choice for them. It should be their choice.

To some extent this selective shielding already happens. I know of a number of adults who have put themselves into voluntary lockdown because they live with a vulnerable person, and such people should be assisted as far as possible to work from home and function in their isolation. But in general, proper protection of the vulnerable without general population lockdowns and restrictions would require some government resource and some upheaval.

There could be, for example, a category of care homes created under strict isolation where no visitation is allowed and there are extremely strict firewall measures. Others may have less stringent precautions and allow greater visitation and movement; people should have the choice, and be assisted in moving to the right kind of institution for them. This would involve upheaval and resources, but nothing at all compared to the upheaval being caused and resources lost by unnecessary pan-societal restrictions currently in force. Temporary shielded residential institutions should be created for those younger people whose underlying health conditions put them at particular risk, should they wish to enter them. Special individual arrangements can be put in place. Public resource should not be spared to help.

But beyond those precautions to protect those most in danger, our world should return to full on normal. Ordinary healthy working age people should be allowed to make a living again, to interact socially, to visit their families, to gather together, to enjoy the pub or restaurant. They would be doing so in a time of pandemic, and a small proportion of them would get quite ill for a short while, and a larger proportion would get mildly ill . But that is a part of the human condition. The myth that we can escape disease completely and live forever is a nonsense.

Against this are the arguments that “every death is a tragedy” and “one death is too many”. It is of course true that every death is a tragedy. But in fact we accept a risk of death any time we get in a car or cross a road, or indeed buy meat from the butcher. In the USA, there has been an average of 4.5 amusement park ride fatalities a year for the last 20 years; that is an entirely unnecessary social activity with a slightly increased risk of death. Few seriously want amusement parks closed down.

I genuinely am convinced that for non-geriatric people, the risk of death from Covid-19 is, as the Stanford study suggested, about the same as the risk of death from traffic accident on a daily commute. The idea that people should not commute to work because “any death is a tragedy” is plainly a nonsense.

The problem is that it is a truism of politics that fear works in rendering a population docile, obedient or even grateful to its political leaders. The major restrictions on liberty under the excuse of the “war on terror” proved that, when the statistical risk of death by terrorism has always been extraordinarily small to any individual, far less than the risk of traffic accident. All the passenger security checks that make flying a misery, across the entire world, have never caught a single bomb, anywhere.

Populations terrified of covid-19 applaud, in large majority, mass lockdowns of the economy which have little grounding in logic. The way for a politician to be popular is to impose more severe lockdown measures and tell the population they are being saved, even as the economy crumbles. Conversely, to argue against blanket measures is to invite real hostility. The political bonus is in upping the fear levels, not in calming them.

This is very plain in Scotland, where Nicola Sturgeon has achieved huge popularity by appearing more competent and caring in managing the covid-19 crisis than Boris Johnson – which may be the lowest bar ever set as a measure of political performance, but it would be churlish not to say she has cleared it with style and by a substantial margin.

But when all the political gains are on the side of more blanket lockdowns and ramping up the levels of fear, then the chances of measures tailored and targeted specifically on the vulnerable being adopted are receding. There is also the danger that politicians will wish to keep this political atmosphere going as long as possible. Fear is easy to spread. If you make people wear face masks and tell them never to go closer than 2 metres to another person or they may die, you can throw half the population immediately into irrational hostility towards their neighbours. Strangers are not seen as people but as parcels of disease.

In these circumstances, asking ordinary people to worry about political liberty is not fruitful. But the new five tier measures announced by the Scottish government yesterday were worrying in terms of what they seem to indicate about the permanence of restrictions on the, not really under threat, general population. In introducing the new system, Nicola Sturgeon went all BBC on us and invoked the second world war and the wartime spirit, saying we would eventually get through this. That of course was a six year haul.

But what really worried me was the Scottish government’s new five tier system with restrictions nominated not 1 to 5, but 0 to 4. Zero level restrictions includes gatherings being limited to 8 people indoors or 15 people outdoors – which of course would preclude much political activity. When Julian Assange’s father John was visiting us this week I wished to organise a small vigil for Julian in Glasgow, but was unable to do so because of Covid restrictions. Even at zero level under the Scottish government’s new plans, freedom of assembly – an absolutely fundamental right – will still be abolished and much political activity banned. I cannot see any route to normality here; the truth is, of course, that it is very easy to convince most of the population inspired by fear to turn against those interested in political freedom.

What is in a number? When I tweeted about this, a few government loyalists argued against me that numbering 0 to 4 means nothing and the levels of restriction might equally have been numbered 1 to 5. To which I say, that numbering the tiers of restriction 1 to 5 would have been the natural choice, whereas numbering them 0 to 4 is a highly unusual choice. It can only have been chosen to indicate that 0 is the “normal” level and that normality is henceforth not “No restrictions” but normal is “no public gathering”. When the threat of Covid 19 is deemed to be sufficiently receding we will drop to level zero. If it was intended that after level 1, restrictions would be simply set aside, there would be no level zero. The signal being sent is that level zero is the “new normal” and normal is not no restrictions. It is both sinister and unnecessary.

UPDATE I just posted this reply to a comment that this argument amounts to a “conspiracy theory”. It is an important point so I insert my reply here:
But I am not positing any conspiracy at all. I suspect that it is very easy for politicians to convince themselves that by increasing fear and enforcing fierce restriction, they really are protecting people. It is very easy indeed to genuinely convince yourself of the righteousness of a course which both ostensibly protects the public and gives you a massive personal popularity boost.

It is argued that only Tories are worried about the effect on the economy in the face of a public health pandemic. That is the opposite of the truth. Remarkably, the global lockdowns have coincided with an astonishing rate of increase in the wealth of the richest persons on the planet. That is an effect we are shortly going to see greatly amplified. As tens of thousands of small and medium businesses will be forced into bankruptcy by lockdown measures and economic downturn, their assets and their markets will be snapped up by the vehicles of the super-wealthy.

I am not a covid sceptic. But neither do I approve of fear-mongering. The risk to the large majority of the population is very low indeed, and it is wrong that anybody who states that fact is immediately vilified. The effect of fear on the general population, and the ability of politicians to manipulate that fear to advantage, should not be underestimated as a danger to society.

There has been a substantial increase in human life expectancy over my lifetime and a subsequent distancing from death. That this trend should be permanent, in the face of human over-population, resource exhaustion and climate change, is something we have too readily taken for granted. In the longer term, returning to the familiarity with and acceptance of death that characterised our ancestors, is something to which mankind may need to become re-accustomed.

In the short term, if permanent damage to society is not to be done, then the response needs to be less of an attack on the entire socio-economic structure, and more targeted to the protection of the clearly defined groups at real risk. I greatly dislike those occasions when I feel compelled to write truths which I know will be unpopular, particularly where I expect them to arouse unpleasant vilification rather than just disagreement. This is one of those times. But I write this blog in general to say things I believe need to be said. I am very open to disagreement and to discussion, even if robust, if polite. But this is not the blog to which to come for comfort-reading.

Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

746 thoughts on “Covid-19 and the Political Utility of Fear

1 5 6 7
      • John Pillager

        The Covid related deaths are only ‘up’ if you trust the diagnosis methods. Where are the Flu and Pneumonia figures ? And how can someone testing positive with no symptoms who then dies within 30 days of something unrelated be an official ‘covid death’?
        Utter madness..

        • ET

          The graph is for “all deaths” and as such the diagnosis doesn’t matter. It will show if there is or isn’t excess deaths n comparison to other years. The ONS does breakdown deaths into categories but it takes them longer to compile those.

          “Where are the Flu and Pneumonia figures ?”

          Deaths due to COVID-19 compared with deaths from influenza and pneumonia up to August 2020 are here if you want to look:

          “And how can someone testing positive with no symptoms who then dies within 30 days of something unrelated be an official ‘covid death’? Utter madness..”

          Yes, no, maybe, it depends.
          Death certificates are data gathering devices as much as an administrative document. They are scrutinised for trends etc.
          For instance, all maternal deaths in the UK are recorded and investigated including late maternal deaths up to one year after delivery. Fortunately they are few but those that there are are assessed leading to a 3 yearly review of the leading causes which informs future treatment. This was how Sepsis, Thromboembolism and mental health issues were identified as leading causes and led to extensive reviews on how these issues were managed.

          Another example are road traffic accidents. Investigation into mechanisms of deaths from RTA’s using data from deaths certificates (and other sources) has led to modern car safety features like laminated windscreens, seat belts, air bags, anti-lock breaks, side impact bars, crumple zones etc etc

          If you want to see if a disease has associations with causes of death then you need to be able to identify those who had the disease in the first place. Say, hypothetically, people who tested positive with Sars-cov-2, even if asymptomatic had a propensity to drop dead with heart attacks later. If you cannot identify those who had Sars-Cov-2 then all you can say is we are having a disproportonate number of heart attacks and we have no idea why. 30 days is not that long. It probably should be longer. You can argue about whether they are covid deaths or not but we still need the data for future and further analysis.

      • John Pillager

        Clark –
        I believe that he is talking out straight to the public through media that have the balls to ask questions, as he knows his findings / views would be swallowed up and stifled by the the ‘scientific community’.
        Just as when something goes drastically wrong in hospital, doctors and nurses close ranks.
        There is a clear culture of widespread censorship happening right now. He wants to avoid that censorship.
        SAGE can only be seen as nothing more than a criminal organisation right now.

        • glenn_uk

          You put ‘scientific community’ in scare-quotes – why? Don’t you think such a thing exists?

          It’s also rather curious that you think the media “have the balls to ask questions” – do you seriously think that scientists do not? That they politely just nod away and take everything said by another scientist on faith?

          On the contrary, when someone presents a scientific viewpoint, they subject themselves to the harshest challenges by people who actually know what they’re talking about. It is a process known as “peer review”.

          Not sure where you get the idea of censorship from, either. You have the US President and all his stooges/ useful idiots on downwards denying there is a problem at all, youtubes etc. all full of denialist nonsense, people popping up on the radio/TV/online denouncing any measures which might help against C-19, and people like you peppering comments board with denialist messages. Some censorship!

  • David Rodgers

    Great that you have nailed your colours to the mast here. You are not surprisingly another of the voices of reason on this subject that have been sadly outnumbered or shouted down since the whole thing started.

    However you seem to have missed one thing: that is the opportunity cost for the health service provision to the general population. I have seen estimates of 50,000 excess deaths from reputable sources as a consequence of the various lockdowns and eg cancer treatment deferrals etc. This point is often ignored in discussions of downsides of the lockdown, as if the only or major drawback is the economic one (which is very important of course).

  • Marmite

    My personal view about this is that not enough is known to say whether lockdowns are right or wrong.

    We should focus more on what we know, as fact, to be wrong: skyrocketing unemployment and homelessness; privileged snotheads benefiting from private healthcare and education while others are left behind; one rule for the rich, and another rule for everyone else; fascist restrictions on the right to congregate for protest; illegal use of taxpayer money; super-scumbags like Bezos being allowed to profit off of suffering; the criminal neglect of public services including the NHS.

    Every time some assinine reporter talks about government u-turns or indecisiveness on lockdowns, the real issues are being swept under the carpet, smokescreens are created.

    The real crimes of government, listed above, should be the focus.

    • glenn_uk

      But Marmite, we just don’t know what causes unemployment and homelessness. The jury is still out on whether private healthcare and education might be an actual good for society. The unemployed are hugely overcounted, after all, and measures to help the homeless actually _create_ homelessness. This business of profiteering are all fake news – I’ve heard the likes of Bill Gates are actually behind it.

      Unemployment is just like a holiday, actually – it causes no more harm. Public services are doing better than ever – more money is being spent on them.

      How’s my denialism doing?

  • Marmite

    Pointless speculating, TJ. See you in 2030 then. It’s this kind of nuttiness and conspiracy theorising that drives more sensible people away from this blog.

    Meanwhile, I had compiled a list of things that people can get to work on right now. (Evidently, you don’t seem interested in that, and it should make us wonder why).

    • John Pillager

      This is chilling.
      This has all been looked at and worked on very carefully for a long time.
      The over reaction to this years new strain of Flu has been used as an excuse to bring this into play.
      May God help us..

  • Andybhoy

    At the start of March, I went down with an illness that started as a cold and within a day had developed into a flu to the extent that standing up for more than a few minutes was a real test of strength. I had a few days off work, but even after returnung to wrk I had this incredible weird feeling in my chest. I kept telling people it is still in me. Folk at work, including my boss made jokes about me having Covid. i told them that all the symptoons being listeed ont he radio I could relate too. I had terribel brain fog in the aftermath of it. Them my dad caught it and he took it very badly. His doctor prescribed medicine for him and he started to slowly recover, even now he isn`tn fully back to his old self. But the clincher was arounf 8 weeks after I became ill, my dad had a blood test as part of his treatment for an underlying health condition. Within hours his consultant was on the phone saying his blood counts had dropped dangerously low and that the only other people he had seen that in were his patients in hospital who had been exposed to Covid. Curiously before I caught it, there was a cough thing on the go in Glasgow, quite a few folks at work or their family had had it. Equally curious is that considering no one was self isolating at the time, i was back at work within 5 days as I was needed, no one caught it off me. No reinfection becuase they had already had it? So yes, it is perfectly possible that many people have already had Covid and don`t know they have already had it.

  • R

    1. If there is danger to young people with underlying conditions, and if a policy is adopted of isolating those in danger, it follows that the entire population under 65 must be tested for a whole plethora of possible underlying conditions to determine who is at risk. Either that or you simply discount the risk to those people.
    2. It is not known that the risk to younger people is minimal. Risk consists not only in death, but in chronic illness, which many covid patients suffer – Long Covid.
    3. No, it’s not possible to isolate everyone over 65 while letting the disease rampage through society for a year or more.
    4. The Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese, Singaporean economies suffered a blip and are recovering. If you want to protect the UK economy, follow their examples.
    The problem is not lockdown as such; lockdown needn’t last very long if handled intelligently. In South Korea they didn’t lock down at all. The problem is the incompetence and corruption of the government.

    On mortality rates – how can we tell when the UK doesn’t publish figures for recovered patients? Other countries do, so you can get an idea by looking at the proportion of resolved cases which ended in death.

  • Matt

    is it not the case, though, that the risk here is not simply that the elderly could die of COVID? There are further issues associated with hospitals being completely full, even if the people in hospital are unlikely to die. For example if I get some other illness or injury then I will not have such easy access to treatment if all the hospital beds are filled with COVID patients (even if those COVID patients are at low risk of death). I have always understood the major risk here to be the issue of too many people requiring medical treatment at the same time, rather than the actual mortality rate of COVID-19.

    Or am I missing something?

    Either way I feel it is not right to take the economic damage caused by lockdowns and use that to criticise lockdowns, rather, we should criticise the government’s failure to sufficiently support people through lockdowns.

1 5 6 7

Comments are closed.