For Our Own Safety, The Lockdown Should Be Made Indefinite

All around the world, governments are preoccupied with exactly how to end the lockdowns.  Across Europe and large parts of Asia, people have been confined to their homes for many weeks,  bravely cowering away from a virus which is arguably the greatest threat ever to human existence. Given the extreme dangers we all face from the coronavirus, how precisely can we – safely – plan to return to some semblance of ‘normality’?  After all, the chances must be high that the so-called ‘R’ reproductive rate of COVID-19 will quickly exceed 1 if people regain their ‘right’ to freedom, resulting in the swift re-imposition of lockdowns.

Whilst our leaders plan how to exit the lockdowns, I can’t help wondering if they are about to make a collosal blunder, because they are asking the wrong questions. When the lockdown ends, not only will people be horribly exposed to COVID-19, they will also be at threat from a whole host of other dangers they would otherwise avoid by staying SAFELY at home. Consider, for example, that since the lockdowns began, many lives have been saved since:

•  there has been a 45.6% reduction in needless deaths from lightening strikes
•  23% fewer pedestrians have been impacted with extreme prejudice by cars
•  Although trees have continued to be uprooted in high winds, countless individuals have stayed alive by not being on the streets when the trees fell.

We can think of many other everyday dangers that have been averted by people simply remaining safely indoors.  When you think about it in these terms, it seems mind bogglingly crazy to want to step outside one’s microappartment.  Instead of recklessly ending the confinement therefore, perhaps we would all be much safer staying indoors on an indefinite (near permanent) basis.

There is a multitude of reasons why total confinement should be the new ‘norm’. Firstly, through having been confined indoors for many weeks, most individuals’ immune systems will have become severely compromised. Although exposure to the sun is highly dangerous, some scientists have posited that daylight might have a beneficial impact on the human immune system and respiratory function. Also, because individuals have long self-distanced from other humans, their immune systems have had little to do in the meantime; it follows that were people to be allowed to congregate once more outside, they would quickly succumb to new illnesses and probably die quickly.

The voices senselessly calling for a swift end to confinement tend to cite mere ‘economic’ reasons for doing so. By keeping offices, factories, schools etc. closed, they say, millions of jobs are at risk and we face a ‘catastrophic’ collapse of GDP.

Although such arguments might have held some water in the past, thanks to advances in our understanding and application of economics, we can safely rebut them, and do so below:

• “If the lockdown continues, how will people earn money to put food on their tables?” Simple, according to modern monetary theory, the treasury can simply print enough money to pay everyone a basic living wage. The government can also pass legislation to make it illegal for employers to dismiss their workforce.
• “Won’t asset prices collapse and all economic activity cease if the lockdown continues?’. No. The Federal Reserve is doing a fine job of supporting share prices and keeping them at a healthy level so that nobody loses out. The beauty of our debt-based fiat monetary system is that the government’s capacity to support the economy is literally infinite.

Those are pretty much the only objections I can think people might have to making a lockdown indefinite. Economic activity is largely a social construct and the SAFETY of all must take precedence.

Stay safe, stay at home safely.

Please support Pbier on Patreon