I wrote this tweet this morning:
No isolation for schoolchildren exposed to Covid means no isolation for their parents either. A year after the Great Barrington Declaration and the likely to have been the planned defenestration of Hancock the governmentâ€™s â€˜let it ripâ€™ libertarians are having their day
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) June 29, 2021
I am suggesting three things.
First that the policy on schools is dangerous.
Second, that I rather suspect that Hancock was opposed to both it and the 'living with Covid' policy that Javid is proposing.
Third, that the defenestration of Hancock was planned to permit this new policy to happen. Of course, he rather played into their hands, but when he did I would suggest that the timing of transition was planned, and Javid as his replacement was not a chance: that was all in the libertarian approach now emerging.
What is the basis of that approach? It is that the virus should be allowed to let rip and all this will then be over.
There is however a basic problem with that theory for the Tories. Their theories of 'let rip' are always based on the premise that the 'ripping' will happen to someone other than Tories. Tories are usually protected by their relative wealth whenever such policies are proposed.
But this time there is a flaw in their plan. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that Covid impacts poorer communities the most, it is a fact that Tories get Covid. And so too will Tory children. And they will also suffer from long Covid. Wealth is a very inadequate protection in this case.
And that is the flaw: their exceptionalism, which assumes misfortune only happens to other people and not to them, will not work with Covid. Those of us who care about all people can see that. They are blind to it. And that will be very costly.