Covid certification and mandatory vaccinations, most people can understand opposition to these measures even if they support them themselves. Channelling our old friend John Stuart Mill, there's always a balance to be struck between liberty and security. But these are in a different league to face masks, which saw 38 Tories oppose this inexpensive, low effort, and relatively effective means of mitigating Covid infections. Explaining their opposition, Graham Brady, Mr 1922 himself, described it as "mission creep. Because PPE is next to gulags in the chain of repression. The dependably stupid Steve Baker, the former (self-identifying) hard man of Brexit, said the Prime Minister need to have a grip on his party and "start driving it in the direction of freedom and personal responsibility." Personal responsibility is a funny way to describe one's indifference to exposing others to the risk of infection. And ramping up the rhetoric, Marcus "Clown" Fysh was angling for attention when he carped on about anti-Covid measures not being out of plaice in Nazi Germany. What can you say, anyfin goes on the backbenches these days.
Large numbers of people have pointed to an apparent contradictions in their arguments. You can have the parliamentary wing of Right Said Fred wibbling about freedom, and how putting on masks violates fundamental liberties and the sovereignty of the individual. Fair enough. Libertarianism is a pretty daft belief - the social is the condition of the individual, after all - but it is a coherent system of philosophy and could be interpreted as a wrong but a principled stance. But hold on a moment, what do we have here? Trawling his voting record, we discover Marcus Fysh has cast votes for mass surveillance of private communications, abstained on same-sex marriage, and supported Priti Patel's disgusting Nationality and Borders Bill. Steve Baker's record is little different, including supporting significant restrictions on the right to protest. It doesn't take a genius to work out there's a tension here, and one we find repeated across virtually all the anti-mask Tory MPs. Righteous champions of liberty when it comes to wearing a piece of cloth across one's face, and grubby authoritarians happily empowering state coercion and literal infringements of individual privacy. How to explain away this obvious hypocrisy in their own terms?
Easy. Libertarianism is probably the most infantile of bourgeois ideologies. It expresses capital's desire to be free of any social responsibility. Its nature, its impulse is the monomania of accumulation. Woe betide anything interfering with that (workers' rights, health and safety regulations) or "unjustly" takes a cut out of their cashflow. I.e. The state and its battery of taxes. Consumed by an overweening self-obsession, it purposely, symptomatically forgets that the piling up of cash, that capital itself, is a social relationship and can only be accumulated by a cooperative effort. This is much easier to ignore when the process of accumulation for a significant section of the bourgeoisie immediately appears to be the pay off from wise investments in stocks, hedge funds, and money markets. It's not an accident that libertarian capitalists drawn from manufacturing backgrounds are thin on the ground.
Sublimated into the limited imaginations of Tory MPs, this common sense of a class fraction becomes the common sense of a political faction. Anti-mask whinging is their dressing up opposition to a simple public health measure as high principle because it mildly inconveniences them. The same applies to repressive legislation. They have no problem empowering the police and spooks, and putting meatier sentences on the statue books because these instruments defend their freedom. Banging up Extinction Rebellion protesters is justified because road blockages disrupt the freedom of our high-minded defenders of liberty to go about their business. The hypocrisy is there and baked in because the subject of libertarian discourse is entirely bourgeois, and its identification of the individual and individual interests are one and the same as capital's interests. It is a naked demonstration, in all its duplicity, of class rule in theory.
It's pretty obvious anti-mask Tory MPs aren't acting in the interests of capital or, for that matter, the collective class interest their party serves. But the logic of their position is entirely within this terrain, and are therefore prepared to see potentially millions suffer and thousands die to defend the political relevance of their class habitus.
Image Credit
19 comments:
If I were a potential Tory voter, I would be struck by the implications of this vote: it appears that a large number of senior Tories are actually more insane, and less fit to govern, than Johnson is; in fact, that Johnson may well be the best option likely to manifest itself.
In which case, it's unlikely that your hope that Johnson will somehow be overthrown by his own self-indulgence and hypocrisy is going to materialise.
On the contrary, were it likely that Johnson would fall, it's possible that the Labour Party might step in to rescue him. After all, it does not realistically seem that Starmer and company wish to be holding power right now.
«If I were a potential Tory voter, I would be struck by the implications of this vote: it appears that a large number of senior Tories are actually more insane, and less fit to govern, than Johnson is»
If you were a potential tory voters, first and foremost in the privacy of the ballot box you would vote your interests, and when property prices are booming and brexit got delivered, details like the distraction operations on mask/nomask vax/novax would not bother you much; you can stay home in your 3 bed semi with a large garden and work from your study and get everything delivered, without taking many risks. Potential tory voters can very rationally think that this government is doing fine.
National politics is not a student politics debate on "inimitable" freedom vs. prior restraint at the Westminster Union.
«But these are in a different league to face masks, which saw 38 Tories oppose this inexpensive, low effort, and relatively effective means of mitigating Covid infections.»
To me the mask/nomask and vax/novax debates the Johnson "two minutes of hates" campaigns seem deliberately designed to distract attention from the 10-100 lower death rates in countries that have been disloyal to the "Washington Consensus". They also have the remarkable advantage of taking a lot of time away from other issues like policing bills, housing cost inflation, and other political topics.
I wonder which compelling advantage there is for the "left" to give up political argument to carry water for the factions of the right by engaging with distraction operations, or facilitate or applaud the character assassination campaign to replace Johnson by his right-wing enemies with a more presentable thatcherite to improve the electoral chances of the right.
«The hypocrisy is there and baked in because the subject of libertarian discourse is entirely bourgeois, and its identification of the individual and individual interests are one and the same as capital's interests.»
While obviously the attitudes of the right are hypocritical ("liberty for me, authoritarianism for you") to identify the debate with "capitalism" seems so typical of noddy leftism, as the issue of dual standards, especially as to conflicting liberties, is much older and orthogonal to capitalism, even if capitalists very happily indulge in it.
The framing is the balance between before the fact restraint and after the fact remedy in case liberties conflict:
* Person A may exercise a liberty X in a way that infringes person's B liberty Y.
* Should the exercise of liberty X be subject to prior restraint to prevent the infringement of someone else's liberty Y?
* Should the exercise of liberty X be unrestrained and only after it infringes someone else's liberty Y should there be a remedy?
So for example in most countries' legislation infecting a person is considered similar to poisoning (not that this is widely mentioned).
The "pure" libertarian position is that before the fact restraint is wrong, given that there is the deterrent effect of after the fact remedies: so if a maskless person infects 10 other persons in theory the 10 other personz should sue and/or prosecute the maskless person, and this should be enough to discourage masklessness.
Similarly people should be free to keep barrels of unstable explosives at home, and if they happen to go boom and the whole block is flattened, the victims can always sue or prosecute, and should be enough to discourage keeping at home barrels of unstable explosives.
The balance between before the fact restraint and after the fact remedy is an old problem, and most solutions have been ad-hoc, and driven mostly by the relative frequency of events, the cost of prior restraint vs. the actual deterrent effect of being sued or prosecuted (e.g. the dead don't care about being sued or prosecuted, and the dead cannot sue or prosecute either), and often sheer happenstance or prejudice (the saying "hard cases make bad law" applies mostly to balances between before the fact restraint and after the fact remedy).
So for example there is prior restraint in firearm permits, locksmith licenses, possession of a lot of stuff.
Every category with superior power in history has argued that they should be only subject to after the fact remedy, if at all, and others be subject to before the fact restraint, not just capitalists. That (as B. DeLong quoted a while ago) the laws protect some people without binding them, and bind some other people without protecting them, is not exactly a capitalist invention.
The particular cases of masks or vaccination or far more importantly of mass test-trace-isolate are obfiscated in the case of SARS-CoV-2 because it is an illness that while being around 10 times more deadly than the flu, it is also 10 times less deadly than the plague, so many people can argue "why worry when it leaves 97-99% of the population alive?" as Boris apparently did, not unreasonably, but stupidly.
If SARS-CoV-2 killed 10-30% of the population I guess that very few people would be making arguments against before the fact restraint and for the liberty to infect others, and people like Baker would be voting for extremely illiberal laws out of terror. In past ages during plagues the individuals or families or entire villages infected or merely suspected to be infected were sometimes boarded up in their houses, sometimes burned alive in them, to stop the contagion, a pretty extreme case of before the fact restraint.
Yet another in a long list of examples where decency is used as the icing on the venality. It is a tactic that is so ubiquitous these days, as woke hysteria reaches its zenith, that it seems completely normal.
Of course behind the deep concern for our welfare lies ulterior motives (as always), mask wearing today, free market limitations tomorrow. This goes beyond that section of the 5 million businessmen and their families and lord Boffy which rely on mouths being exposed, such as hospitality, this affects all 5 million and their families and Lord Boffy. Mask wearing cuts to the core of their free market ideology, people are supposed to be consumers and workers and nothing more besides. Mask wearing! Get off that Peleton, get your ass into work, stop complaining and get that beer down your throats!
Mask wearing is a threat to their profit making, and nothing but nothing can ever get in the way of their plush lifestyles!
But enough of all this, what we need is lockdown now, more deep and strict than any we have had. If we had gone with a zero strategy from the beginning, as China have done and I argued for at the time, we would not be where we are now.
The consequences of exchange become more acute by the hour, something has to give, the ideology of the 5 million businessmen and their families and lord Boffy must surely be on borrowed time.
Wearing a mask does not stop you being infected. Masks are only effective as means of limiting the spread of pathogens by those that have them. The real way of preventing illness is via immunity either from prior infection or vaccination.
So, why should anyone who has gone to the trouble of being vaccinated, or who has natural immunity be required to wear a mask or subject themselves to other limitations, which would only be to the benefit of anyone who simply can't be arsed to get vaccinated?
Isn't the anti-social action that of the latter, not the former? Given that the Omicron variant is known to be much milder than previous variants a quick, cheap and effective way of obtaining further immunity is not to limit its spread, but facilitate it amongst any section of the population unlikely to suffer ill-health from it, and so masks, whilst not objectionable in themselves, would be counter-productive.
More important than the masks or the passes Labour MPS voted to fire those care workers who are un vacinated and do not work in a care home. This actually effects more people than the vote labour mps rejected in June. With the exception 0f a small number of MPS such as Rebecca Long-Bailey the whole PLP decided it was ok to do this to minimum wage workers. What has changed in the last six months? I wont vote Labour when they voted to sack me....
"...Marcus "Clown" Fysh was angling..."
I see what you did there :D
According to the CDC’s of China, USA, across EU, Russia etc etc, masks are an effective way to reduce the spread of the disease, as part of a collection of measures. This is why virtually every nation on earth requires masks to be worn when the infection rates are increasing. This is why, for example, the cdc of China produced millions of leaflets explaining when to wear masks, how to wear them and how to dispose of them etc etc.
They didn’t go to this expense for nothing, and I suspect the mask industry isn’t secretly bribing them either! Incidentally the effectiveness of masks was confirmed before covid, as South Asia have has had many SARS like viruses to contend with.
Of course, now Lord Boffy has spoken, that great expert on everything under the sun, the cdc of China and other nations all around the world may revise their advice.
Watch this space!
As usual there is something going on in the undergrowth.
This looks very interesting:
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/12/14/steve-bakers-conservative-rebellion-tied-to-pro-trump-disinformation-network-bankrolled-by-robert-mercer/
«and get that beer down your throats! Mask wearing is a threat to their profit making,»
That seems to me rather simplistic: if that was the motivation, why "capitalists" and their representatives including Starmer, Sturgeon, Davey have fully endorsed the halfbaked lockdowns approach prevalent in most "Washington Consensus" governments, with has meant losses of profits, businesses and jobs and GDP, when it was proven that test-trace-isolate resulted in minimal or no impact on public activity and jobs and GDP?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/27/five-ways-the-government-could-have-avoided-100000-covid-deaths
“While the number of UK deaths has entered the hundreds of thousands, New Zealand has recorded only 25 deaths from Covid-19 so far. Taiwan has recorded seven, Australia 909, Finland 655, Norway 550 and Singapore 29.
These countries have largely returned to normal daily life.”
https://twitter.com/thatalicewu/status/1330287079708893184
“Then again, they haven't had a case in 200 days. And everyone has been living their lives freely since February. A note on contact tracing: I'm no expert, and historically a proponent of privacy, but if you have a credit card, or downloaded any number of apps, it seems "they" already have your info. So in a gosh-darn pandemic: sign up for contact tracing! Again, not an expert.
But again: EVERYONE IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN LIVING THEIR LIVES FREELY SINCE FEBRUARY! I mean yes, people voluntarily wear masks in public places, but otherwise, restaurants, subways, etc are packed.”
https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/a-guide-to-2021-covid-vaccines-stimulus-sanity
“China, which clamped down on Covid with compulsory mask wearing isolation of the sick, and effective contact tracing. Chinese are blithely eating in restaurants, sitting in theaters, attending school, and going back to work.
On Jan. 18 the government reported GDP grew 2.3% in 2020, which makes China the only major economy to to avoid a contraction for the year. Exports helped: they rose 18% in December from a year earlier despite slow demand growth abroad because Chinese exporters grabbed market share from foreign rivals.”
The whole mask/nomask vax/novax debates seem to me to have the purpose of distracting the gullibles from the numbers above.
Taiwan and NZ are not Britain. Wearing a mask is effective in preventing those with the virus spreading it, but not in preventing those wearing the masks from contracting it. As all scientists have agreed, the reason for that is that the masks stop the aerosol from being dispersed, but they do not stop it being breathed in.
That is why they are an effective measure when the level of infections are low, and the requirement is to prevent further spread. Its why they have been effective in Asia, where they were worn early on before the level of infections rose to high levels. The same applies to test and trace which can work where infection levels are low, and where borders can be sealed effectively. Of course, in those early days, when masks could have been effective, the WHO and national scientific bodies such as SAGE argued against them!
With millions of people already infected, or else with immunity via vaccination, mask wearing seems pointless as does test and trace or passports. Millions of people could be "infected", and probably are, and yet as a result of vaccination or natural immunity are in no risk whatsoever of becoming ill. Being immune does not prevent you being infected, only prevents the infection overwhelming your system.
The onus is on the minority who have not been arsed to get vaccinated to do so or else to risk being ill. Its not on the rest of us to protect them from their idiocy, and denialism.
I believe you can correlate free market ideology to an aversion to lockdowns and masks.
“why "capitalists" and their representatives including Starmer, Sturgeon, Davey have fully endorsed the halfbaked lockdowns approach”
This is a myth (though the lockdowns have been piss weak if that is what you mean by half baked, whereas China have imposed fully baked lockdowns and see far far far better outcomes), they haven’t embraced them at all. They were dragged kicking and screaming into them, after their scientists raised the alarm, and if we can some something for bourgeois rule it is that some form of accountability exists. At the height of the deaths in the UK during the first so called lockdown, Starmer was asking for an exit strategy! Burham complained when Manchester had to impose further restrictions, and became the darling of pop stars and hospitality, who were understandably alarmed that their cash cows were being flushed down the toilet.
In the UK, at least, the ‘capitalists’ have resorted to lockdowns as late as possible and opened up as early as possible, and the lockdowns have not really been lockdowns! I mean I am considered a key worker and I sit at a computer most of the day playing with data! Don’t tell my boss but I am as far from being a key worker as it is possible to get.
But I was talking about masks and not lockdowns, right!? Masks are a threat to free market ideology because they take humanity to different ideological considerations, different prioritisations. The danger is that these considerations have wider effects, and they worry where this will all lead. There is a whiff of conscious action about them, when what the bourgeois want are passive consumers.
Personally I think the free marketers are over exaggerating the worry and I will say, how hard is it to wear a fucking mask. What is the big fucking deal. Stop worrying, stop moaning and just fucking wear them.
“when it was proven that test-trace-isolate resulted in minimal or no impact on public activity and jobs and GDP”
Because test, trace and isolate doesn’t work to reduce infections by itself, given someone tested 3 hours ago may become infectious 3 hours later.
"The whole mask/nomask vax/novax debates seem to me to have the purpose of distracting the gullibles from the numbers above."
Well maybe, that is the job of politicians right! However, this is the problem with political activism in the time of social media, conspiracy theory goes wild and the actual scientific arguments that underpin these public health measures get lost in all the icing/bullshit.
I kind of expected better from Blissex.
I don't suppose there is any point in asking if you have evidence as to whether and how much masks prevent the spread of Covid?
This link may help you dipper, I am sorry in advance if the source isn't up to your exacting standards, I am sure you get your 'facts' from that bloke on the internet who said masks are useless or maybe from Lord Boffy himself, but I apologise again, the World Health organisation is the best I could do:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
Dont suppose there is any point asking dipper why he thinks every CDC and most governments advise using masks as a means to reduce the spread of infection?
I suppose dipper believes all this expert advice is some sort of conspiracy to control us?
Like people are not already behaving exactly as those in power would wish, it is all rather pathetically tragic really.
«evidence as to whether and how much masks prevent the spread of Covid?»
The famous danish study as correctly re-examined by NN Taleb, for example:
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1331950909467844609
“Nassim Nicholas Taleb @nntaleb · Nov 26, 2020
THEY GOT IT BACKWARDS! There are more flaws with the Danish Mask Study. In fact what is not flawed provides an overwhelming evidence in favor of masks (risk reduction >70%, perhaps >90%).”
https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks-masquerade-7de897b517b7
“In fact masks (and faceshields) supplemented with constraints of superspreader events can save us trillions of dollars in future lockdowns (and lawsuits) and be potentially sufficient (under adequate compliance) to stem the pandemic.”
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1304507550788915201
“I believe that overactive testing (even if high error rate) + masks + constraining superspreaders effectively allow you to keep functioning. Cheaper than lockdowns.”
One particular aspect of masks is that even when they don't stop the spread completely, it appears that the severity of illness is also related to how much virus one gets infected with, and masks considerably reduce that, even when they are imperfect barriers.
«Because test, trace and isolate doesn’t work to reduce infections by itself, given someone tested 3 hours ago may become infectious 3 hours later.»
Not by itself, and does not achieve a perfect reduction of contagion, but as a main containment strategy that it works 10-100 times better is not speculation (if someone had adopted test-trace-isolate it *might* have been 10-100 times better), it is something that actually happened, so arguments why it cannot work well may need to be revised :-)
«Because test, trace and isolate doesn’t work to reduce infections by itself, given someone tested 3 hours ago may become infectious 3 hours later.»
Not by itself, and does not achieve a perfect reduction of contagion, but as a main containment strategy that it works 10-100 times better is not speculation (if someone had adopted test-trace-isolate it *might* have been 10-100 times better), it is something that actually happened, so arguments why it cannot work well may need to be revised :-)
I am quietly confident that if Dipper had Entropy carefully explained to him he would refute that too.
Post a Comment