Ban on barbershops and salons is ‘tyranny for our own good’

LET ’s see if the knowitalls at the Inter-Agency Task Force for The Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) can handle C. S. Lewis, the English author and Oxford scholar.

Lewis once observed memorably: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” MakabentaA5

We are seeing this truth in the arbitrary rules and restrictions that the IATF- EID has devised for the modified enhanced community quarantine ( MECQ), which becomes operational today.

Bullying barbershops and nail salons

I thought the first ECQ would be lifted once the nation saw the effects of the lockdown on the economy. But then the IATF pressed for its renewal.

Now, with the nation bracing for the MECQ, I will wager that the back of the quarantine will be broken by its petty tyranny against barbershops and nail salons, and all the people who patronize and work in them.

According to the MECQ scheme, the Philippines will mercifully allow Metro Manila malls and shops located inside to reopen starting today.

But then, IATF came up with a vicious qualifier: barbershops and salons will remain shut, and people must still stay at home.

Paternalism revisited

On what grounds is this restriction justified?

The IATF is doing it for the good of patrons and workers.

As a regular client who needs a haircut and a nailcut every month, I must grin and bear the imposition, because it will be for my own good. It is designed to prevent my being infected with the virus.

Similarly, for my barber and manicurist, the prohibition is for their own good because they will be protected from being infected by their clients.

Paternalism fell into desuetude since the time of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant.

Paternalism, as attitude and practice, is now exclusively understood as an infringement on the personal freedom and autonomy of a person (or class of persons) with a beneficent or protective intent. Paternalism generally involves competing claims between individual liberty and authoritative social control.

The IATF, urged on by local governments, is appropriating unprecedented amounts of power over our lives, and setting dangerous precedents.

It has become an economic czar who can decree which businesses will live and which will shut down, regardless of how many will be bankrupted and how many will lose their jobs.

The czar even dares to restrict our fundamental right to gather and worship.

This is abuse of authority period, and it is this which will spell the end of the community quarantine.

Lockdown strategy on way out

Unknown to the bureaucrats in the IATF, major developments are taking place internationally that discredit the lockdown strategy in fighting the pandemic.

In its May- June issue, Foreign

Affairs has just published a major article co-authored by three social scientists — a political scientist, a sociologist and an economist — who predict that Sweden’s coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) strategy (no lockdown) will soon become the world’s strategy of choice in fighting the pandemic.

The three professors are: Nils Karlson,Professor of political science at Linköping University; Charlotta Stern, professor of sociology at Stockholm University; and Daniel Klein, professor of economics at George Mason University.

Their essay in ForeignAffairs is boldly titled: “Sweden’s coronavirus strategy will soon be the world’s.”

The argument of the entire article is captured by the following paragraphs:

“China placed 50 million people under quarantine in Wuhan province in January. Since then, many liberal democracies have taken aggressive authoritarian measures of their own to fight the novel coronavirus. By mid- March, almost all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries had implemented some combination of school, university, workplace and public transportation closures; restrictions on public events; and limits on domestic and international travel. One country, however, stands out as an exception in the West.

Rather than declare a lockdown or a state of emergency, Sweden asked its citizens to practice social distancing on a mostly voluntary basis. Swedish authorities imposed some restrictions designed to flatten the curve: no public gatherings of more than 50 people, no bar service, distance learning in high schools and universities, and so on. But they eschewed harsh controls, fines, and policing. Swedes have changed their behavior, but not as profoundly as the citizens of other Western democracies. Many restaurants remain open, although they are lightly trafficked; young children are still in school. And in contrast to neighboring Norway ( and some Asian countries), Sweden has not introduced location- tracing technologies or apps, thus avoiding threats to privacy and personal autonomy.

Swedish authorities have not officially declared a goal of reaching herd immunity, which most scientists believe is achieved when more than 60 percent of the population has had the virus. But augmenting immunity is no doubt part of the government’s broader strategy — or at least a likely consequence of keeping schools, restaurants and most businesses open. Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist at Sweden’s Public Health Agency, has projected that the city of Stockholm could reach herd immunity as early as this month. Based on updated behavioral assumptions ( social distancing norms are changing how Swedes behave), the Stockholm University mathematician Tom Britton has calculated that 40- percent immunity in the capital could be enough to stop the virus’ spread there and that this could happen by mid- June.

When much of the world experiences a deadly second wave, Sweden will have the worst of the pandemic behind it.

Sweden’s response has not been perfect, but it has succeeded in bolstering immunity among the young and the healthy — those at the lowest risk of serious complications from Covid- 19 — while also flattening the curve. The country’s intensive care units have not been overrun, and hospital staffs, although under strain, have at least not had to juggle additional childcare responsibilities because daycare centers and lower schools continue to operate.

Whether or not they have openly embraced the Swedish approach, many other countries are now trying to emulate aspects of it. Both Denmark and Finland have reopened schools for young children. Germany is allowing small shops to reopen. Italy will soon reopen parks, and France has a plan to allow some nonessential businesses to reopen, including farmers’ markets and small museums, as well as schools and daycare centers. In the United States, which has by far the highest absolute number of reported Covid-19 deaths, several states are easing restrictions at the urging of President Donald Trump.

There are good reasons for countries to begin easing their restrictions. It will take several years to tally the total number of deaths, bankruptcies, layoffs, suicides, mental health problems, losses to GDP ( gross domestic product) and investments, and other costs attributable not just to the virus but to the measures used to fight it.”

Why lockdown strategy has faded

The three professors believe that Sweden’s strategy has grown in reputation and prestige at the same time that the lockdown strategy has faded.

There are multiple reasons for this. Lockdowns are simply not sustainable for the amount of time that it will likely take to develop a vaccine. Letting up will reduce economic, social and political pressures. It may also allow populations to build an immunity that will end up being the least bad way of fighting Covid- 19 in the long run.

Much about the disease remains poorly understood, but countries that are locked down now could very well face new and even more severe outbreaks down the road. If these countries follow the Swedish path to herd immunity, the total cost of the pandemic will decrease, and it will likely end sooner.

The justification for general lockdowns has grown weaker and weaker. Even in places like the United States and the United Kingdom, where the pool of atrisk people is much larger, the cost of protecting these people is much lower than forcing everyone to stay home. Managing the path to herd immunity means, above all, protecting the vulnerable. Sweden learned that the hard way, but the situation there is now under control.

As the pain of national lockdowns grows intolerable and countries realize that managing — rather than defeating — the pandemic is the only realistic option, more and more of them will begin to open up. Smart physical distancing to keep health care systems from being overwhelmed, improved therapies for the afflicted and better protections for at- risk groups can help reduce the human toll. But at the end of the day, increased — and ultimately, herd — immunity may be the only viable defense against the disease.