Silver Fox

Fear. This article nails some of it:

A Government-created culture of fear is now our greatest danger The hostile reaction to reopening has betrayed just how hard it will be to return to normality

Fear is so much easier to incite than to dispel. We were reminded of that when the prime minister announced what is likely to be the imminent end of the last remaining restrictions on normal life in England. The farrago of public criticism was, by the standards of recent hysteria, mercifully small but it still had the intended effect on public discourse. Because it was now likely to happen earlier than first predicted, the removal of those last rules was described as “premature”.

Even though the original planned date had never been anything more than an estimate based primarily on how severe the omicron variant turned out to be, it had now taken on the sanctity of a revealed truth which must not be contravened. This analysis was taken seriously by the media and thus inevitably by a significant proportion of the population.

More specifically, and damningly, the announcement was derided as a “political” decision, rather than a “scientific” one. Well yes, of course it was a political decision in the strict literal sense of the word, because it was a decision made by elected political leaders which is the way, at least for the moment, we still do things in a democracy.

What this meant was that it took in a much wider set of considerations that impacted on society and the economy than the (rapidly diminishing) effects of Covid which were the specific focus of those scientists – whose advice had now presumably been placed in a broader context than it was at the height of their influence. But what the scientists who queued up for their broadcasting appearances were implying was itself very “political”.

They were criticising Boris Johnson for making a public health pronouncement for opportunistic reasons: simply to boost his own popularity when he was in electoral danger. So they were, by trying to undermine public confidence in his decision, playing politics too – which, as unelected advisers (whose earlier forecast of what would be the appropriate moment to end regulations had always been provisional) was quite inappropriate. Wasn’t there something oddly disproportionate in the outrage over putting an end to what are, in truth, only very minimal restrictions? What was actually at the heart of this alarm seemed to be a sense that the Government was brazenly declaring a definitive end to the Covid chapter of our history: that’s it, all finished, you can go back to life as you have known it.

But it is not just sidelined experts who have expressed doubt about this return to normality. Nor is it only those who have obviously benefited in terms of personal convenience or reduced costs. There is a phenomenon that is much more profound and dangerous at the root of this which we may perhaps, in our modern vanity, have thought we would never see again.

Ironically, it is the thing that science and the technical progress to which it has led, was supposed to prevent forever: the willingness of human beings – as individuals and communities – to embrace fear. And I do mean “embrace”. Not just to accept the reality of danger, or to flee from realistic threats – those tendencies exist for sound evolutionary reasons. The capacity for anxiety is essential to survival. No, what has happened over the past two years has been nothing less than the spread of an addiction to fear sometimes enforced by law but often simply produced by psychological coercion – which was taken up with startling alacrity by virtually the entire country.

This was the sort of chronic, disabling fear – as we can see clearly now from those who are reluctant to give it up – that becomes almost impossible to relinquish: a habitual dependency quite like a drug which renders life outside its remit intolerable. (One sees this sort of syndrome in children and adolescents who have become so conditioned by terrifying early experiences that they are primed to perceive danger in every life situation.)

There is now a proportion of the population which is, in effect, refusing to leave the imprisonment which it concluded was the only safe refuge. What is more, many people are arguing that nobody should be released until some undefined state of absolute safety for everyone (even the seriously ill or vulnerable) can be guaranteed. This demand is both logically impossible and morally unacceptable and yet – in the bizarre state of mind that has been induced over the past two years – it is being seriously entertained.

We know how we got here. By a brilliantly sustained orchestration of opinion-forming techniques that was so blindingly successful that it took even its designers by surprise. What needs to be discussed now as a matter of urgency is just how dangerous the result has been. What happens when people become truly terrified – so fearful that they are prepared to sacrifice much of what makes life worth living? They become obedient, docile and passive – which was the whole point of this programme after all. If that passivity – that relinquishing of free will – persists long enough, they become incapable of making individual choices, of taking initiative, of inventing brave advances that might alter their own condition and that of others.

Once launched, a campaign to cause widespread fear cannot – as the Government discovered last week – just be stopped in its tracks. You can’t just blow a whistle as if it were the end of the football match and expect everything to resume. Fear is disabling: it makes people feel helpless. But, perversely, it is also habit-forming. The sense that your fate is out of your control can be comfortable. Just do as you are told. If it goes wrong, it will be somebody else’s fault.

This might be the greatest danger from which we have just managed to escape. Everything in our modern order – democratic process, the enforcement of law, economic transactions – depends on the principle of rational behaviour: the idea that individuals can act responsibly and be entrusted with freedoms. How close did we come to losing our grip on that?

KARFA

you are absolutely right, and that goes both ways of course

corporate-wage-slave

I would probably see that as the same question really, there is no point insisting on masks on aircraft but not airports and also vice versa, though AMS had a bit of a go at it, allowing mask-free use of the terminal. Ironically I'm not an expert on how this works on airlines so I wouldn't give my views particular weight, it's not my field of expertise. But if England gets rid of all the Statutory Instruments in a couple of weeks, then all HAL and BA can do is revert to conditions of carriage, which I suspect they will do for a while longer given that BA is generally flying to places with different rules. It will probably break down at some point, since the weak spot is that it is difficult to challenge someone who isn't wearing a mask - some will have a legitimate reason. As an example of it happening, air travel within the Nordics will probably be mask-free in a few weeks, to take one example, as was the case back in the summer.

KARFA

Yes and just to add we did have a period last year from July to December when the face covering SI in England was revoked and HAL and BA (at least for English airspace) were relying on their own policies. Since late January we are in that position again as the SI for England was allowed to lapse.

I agree the requirements for airports and airlines will continue for a while, but perhaps this may start to change later this year as more countries drop mask laws.

paulaf

I agree it would be a nonsense to walk around the airport mask free and then put it on at the plane door, I wonder how people might be put off travel though if they were no longer mandatory on planes as project fear has done such a good job? That makes me think unfortunately they will stay longer than really necessary, and we need to wait for other countries to drop the requirement to wear them indoors and I think we're a way off that too, eg Spain has only just dropped the outdoor mask rule again.

USA_flyer

I think we'll see more countries abandon the inbound testing before we see the mask mandates drop.

Silver Fox

I suspect most countries will be looking at England and the Scandis to see what happens.

Kgmm77

Unfortunately what I see in this thread is a few people who struggled to accept mask mandates at pretty much every point during the pandemic and seem to define their happiness and some bizarre search for “normal” (whatever that is?) not just by their own freedom to choose but by what other people and businesses are choosing to do in exercising their free choices.

paulaf

I was just asking about the next logical step after 24th Feb about masks as it is a bugbear of mine I freely admit, surely no-one actually likes wearing them, although I do think some now use it as a kind of comfort blanket. Yes I do want to get back to normal life as it was before Covid, and have the freedom to choose whether to wear a mask or not.

corporate-wage-slave

There is a middle ground here. When the levels of infection fall to a particular point then the risk remains, particularly for those with low immunity, those with bone cancer in particular but also to vulnerable people, the unvaccinated, those in poverty, those in sub-standard housing or multi-generational households. But with better treatment, increased immunity levels in the community, continued vaccination of the immunity suppressed, better testing - all these mean that outcomes are improving. Once the level of infection gets to around 400 per 100,000 per 7 days cumulative, then random infection, from non household members, is going to be less common (though not rare). Most infections are within the same household, and the next biggest infection route are linked household (another family member or friend that you visit).

Now we can go into the emotions of the argument, and say "it's gone on long enough" or "it's too soon to relax" or "we are putting vulnerable at risk" or "children have been damaged enough". And I guess all these views have validity even though they point to different outcomes. Alternatively we can use the data argument and say "we know that below 400 cases per 100,000 this has a lower risk and better health care impacts, but it's not risk free".

Currently the England overall rate is 748 per 100k, so well above 400. However there is a delay built into data collection, and my estimate of the real rate today is about 585 per 100k. When the prime minister stands up in the Commons on 24 February, my current estimate is that the rate at that point will be about 450 per 100k, or 350 per 100k projecting forward the data. This assumes the current case load continues to fall.

DaveS

Daily data:

Cases 41,270 (54,095 last Sunday)
Deaths 52 (75)
Vaccinated up to and including 12 February 2022:
First dose: 52,492,276
Second dose: 48,719,951
Booster: 37,729,821

The rolling seven day daily average for cases is now down 31.4% on the previous week and the same measure for deaths is down 26.9%. The rolling 7 day daily average for deaths is 179.0 today.

IAN-UK

Outside very few situations, you already have the freedom to choose whether or not to wear a mask.

I don't see why you are so concerned about others using a face covering.
You might believe them foolish, but they're simply making an effort to protect you, themselves and others from infection.
I have no idea of the impact of mask wearing on curbing infection rates: but I'm pretty certain the effect can only be positive.
It comes at a very low cost, very little effort, to most of us: and after the sacrifices so many have made it's a cost, an inconvenience, many are happy to make.

liquidtoast

My lateral flows also continued to come up positive past day 10 when I had it back in December. A couple anxious calls to the NHS advice line and my GP left me with the same advice from both: STOP taking any tests for 90 days and if your symptoms are improving (they were) and no fever for at least two days (never had one), exit isolation. I followed that advice and it all worked out fine. I have no idea when my tests would have started coming up negative as it was weeks before I took another one.

I should add that this was before testing out on day 7 here in Scotland was a thing, so I caught a row for taking any tests at all during my isolation period.

antichef

I agree with this.

If you think back all those years to pre-COVID times, walking through LHR you would regularly have seen people wandering around wearing face masks. They were mainly of asian appearance, where it seemed to be a normal part of their travelling lives.

It now will be an option that more europeans may continue to follow. If nothing else, people are now more educated about personal hygiene and so better washing of hands etc will probably contribute to better infection control for some time to come.

NewbieRunner

Only in England, unless very few situations include shops, public transport and other indoor public space in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.