Reading Twitter this morning, there appears to be a political divide between those who call for a relaxation to lockdown and those who accuse right wing marketeers for insensitive, thoughtless greed.
There is undoubtedly some truth in this but it is far too simplistic. There are deeper class-based and geographical differences too. Big businesses calling for their staff to go back to work to get profits up again is pretty unacceptable, especially where these people will be in personal danger and their activities can significantly increase the spread of the virus. On the other hand, small businesses with one or two staff and very limited social interaction could surely get going again soon. These businesses are currently dependent on the banks sorting out loans in time to stay afloat – it’s not a case of greed but of survival for the business and their families.
A further distinction could be drawn between densely populated areas with high rates of Covid-19 case and sparsely populated areas where the risks of contracting the virus are lower, and the risk of multiple exposures or a high viral load are especially low. Allowing a few households to interact with each other, or allowing a small class of children to return to school in a relatively insular community should be quite reasonable. Again – this is far away from the “greedy capitalist” accusations levied at those calling for a relaxation of lockdown. However, it does show that the voices of those in small businesses and in smaller communities are often less well represented.
A regional approach to relaxing lockdown, where families and small community groups can reconnect can help to overcome the mental health concerns and where small businesses can get up and running as soon as possible needs to happen quickly. This will help to reduce the phenomenal economic costs that will follow but, most importantly, also help those small businesses whose recovery is likely to be most challenging, get a head start on the big businesses who will be geared up for a swift return to normal at all costs.
Reports that up to 150,000 deaths could be caused by an extended lockdown are currently being ignored. While this does sound excessive, the knock on effects are not insignificant. Aside from poverty and unemployment, loss of education will have long term impacts, especially for children where their home environment is not supportive for home-education and isolation will have significant social and mental health implications – the duration of which cannot be known. Add to this all of the other medical treatments and diagnoses (especially early cancer testing) that are being side-lined and we are not simply weighing up virus prevention with economic greed, but with a whole range of societal impacts.