Lockdowns have made me realise there are 2 types of people: advocates for freedom and advocates for safety.
I have been a lockdown sceptic since about May 2020. At one point last year I posted on Social Media Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote about freedom:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”
To which a friend, who I know to be an ardent supporter of lockdowns, responded as follows:
“They who can’t give up a little temporary liberty to obtain essential safety don’t deserve safety or liberty.”
So, that was all quite funny. However, this response revealed a truth to me: some people value freedom over safety while others value safety over freedom, and neither side can quite understand the other side’s position.
Those who are more concerned with freedom will believe that the lockdowns are an over-reaction. Such people will then be drawn to evidence that supports their view: that the costs of lockdown are going to be much greater than the benefits; that the PCR tests are not fit for purpose; that the deaths have been exaggerated; that lockdowns are going to cost more lives than they save.
When lockdown sceptics talk about the ‘costs of lockdown being higher than the benefits’, lockdown zealots tend to think we are just referring to economic costs. They then attack us for only thinking about money while they lecture us from the moral high ground about the value of human life. We then have to point out that their thinking is one-dimensional if they can only equate ‘costs’ with money. There are many costs of lockdown that don’t involve money: unemployment; collapsed businesses; depression; anxiety; lost education; under-socialised children; State authoritarianism; preventable deaths caused by cancelled treatments; cancelled weddings; the inhumanity of lockdown-era funerals; people dying in hospital without the presence of their families; people not being able to visit their relatives in care homes suspended lives etc.
Also, scientific evidence that neither lockdowns nor masks have made any difference will enforce the opinion amongst advocates for Freedom that freedoms have been removed for no good reason.
We also know from history that, once freedoms are lost, it is incredibly hard to win them back. For example, the Government are going to be much more prepared to implement lockdowns in the future now that they realise how compliant we are. This has set a dangerous precedent. Freedom lovers are increasingly distrustful of the Government.
Those who are more concerned with safety are preoccupied with the Covid death rate and fear that worst case predictions of future deaths are about to come true. They are not so concerned with predictions of non-covid future deaths caused by lockdowns because they are living in the moment of current deaths. They are prepared to accept any limitations on their freedom in order to reduce current deaths. They believe that lockdowns and masks have saved lives. They are not concerned about future deaths caused by lockdowns because they believe those numbers are but a small fraction of the lives saved by lockdowns. Loss of freedom does not concern them: they are more than prepared to pay the cost. They look to the Government to protect them. They will gladly accept a vaccine that is licensed for ‘Emergency Use Only’ for which the manufacturers have immunity from liability for harmful side-effects. The Safety brigade will happily accept a vaccine passport. These are the people you see wearing masks while they drive alone in their cars. This group support every restriction introduced by the Government (many of them think the Government hasn’t gone far enough).
These two groups will never see eye to eye on lockdowns which explains why I have never been able to change the mind of a single lockdown supporter: members of each group have a fundamentally different mindset. They have a different prioritisation as to what is important, which is not answerable to reason.
“A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” ~ John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)
Unfortunately, for me, the ‘safety at any cost’ brigade outnumber the ‘if we give away our freedoms we will have to fight to win them back’ group.
I would say that ‘safety’ is the emotional argument in that it is myopically focused on the single metric of deaths while ignoring all other considerations. ‘Freedom’ is the rational position that asks why 100% of people have had their rights and freedoms removed for a disease that kills 0.03% of people.
The Freedom argument reflects a healthy mistrust of authority. The Safety argument reflects total trust in authority. History has taught us that it is never wise to place all your trust in authorities.
The freedom vs safety theory also explains why The Left have embraced lockdowns so much: The Left are very much drawn the the care/harm moral foundation (as described fully in ‘The Righteous Mind’ by Jonathan Haidt). Also, The Left always look to the Government to look after them. Those on the Right, on the other hand, having a wider spread of moral foundations and placing greater emphasis on personal responsibility than State control, will place freedom first.
Here is a freedom vs safety meme that I like:
Atticus Fox 