Read on Twitter
I know many followers are banging their heads wondering why the response to this pandemic has been characterised by slow and inadequate measures. As a former conservative I’d like to use this thread to shed some light on the political philosophies informing responses.
Modern strands of conservative thought have focussed on the illegitimacy of regulation when it comes to commercial activities. This is no more obvious on matters of public health (e.g. plain packaged cigarettes) and environmental policy.
This also coincides with a romanticisation of personal risk, and attempts to characterise regulations including some industrial health and safety laws as red tape https://safetyatworkblog.com/2013/04/08/an-ohs-look-at-the-liberal-partys-policy-document/.
Justifying this worldview is the mythos that a strong economy has created all the things we enjoy, including health care. Whilst no one disputes the benefits of a strong economy, this belies the point that public health is also a fundamental economic input.
Our strong economies owe a lot to public health campaigns particularly in the early 20th century which reduced economic losses to infectious diseases (which continue to bleed developing economies).
Recent studies and projections based on elimination vs suppression jurisdictions continue to highlight the economic gains elimination delivers. Hence a learn to live with is approach isn’t about lives vs livelihoods https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123859434/researchers-economies-may-do-better-with-an-eliminate-strategy-in-pandemics
What it does boil down to is how people view the legitimacy of regulation. If strong regulatory measures and restrictions deliver us from COVID, will a push for regulatory solutions to global problems end there?
@YouAreLobbyLud @NjbBari3 @busycactus @drvyom @SciencePharmer @PerpetualWinger @drajm @DrPieterPeach @geoffrey_hurst @PMGPSC @kiai
