Restoring liberty will require some nasty trade-offs

In the brave new world of coronavirus, extraordinary things have rapidly morphed into the new “normal”; neighbours snitching on each other for their non-politburo-approved second walk of the day, local police forces micro-managing dog walks and shopping baskets and, most eerily of all, celebrity fitness videos becoming a viable way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

Now, German scientists are reportedly developing “immunity certificates” to be issued to citizens who pass antibody tests, allowing them to re-enter society after recovering from Covid-19. Though overlooked in the outrage over government testing failures, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has pledged to consider similar measures.

The cultural impact of “immunity passports” could be momentous. Not quite a caste system of full Huxleyan proportions, perhaps, but it will certainly drive resentment against those able to resume normal life while millions sit frustratedly at home (the new social distinction will be between “have-hads” and “have-not-hads”).

The immune will no doubt advertise their status on CVs, and even their dating apps. The policy could foment regional grievances between areas deemed to have achieved “herd immunity”, and those where it is still considered too risky to lift restrictions.

Then the perverse sideeffects. Millions will come under pressure to contract coronavirus. Consider the inducements for younger people, who, although less likely to die from it, are obliged to suspend all academic, social and romantic commitments indefinitely. Covid-19 infection parties could become the new graduate recruitment fairs for the young and ambitious. Legal recognition could empower police forces to stop even more people in the street for proof of immunity – thus creating a full-on lockdown instead of the current phoney one. A black market in certificates would emerge.

As a libertarian, this prospect makes me uncomfortable. Yet the present state of affairs is untenable. Italy’s rapid descent into social unrest proves that restrictive measures cannot persist indefinitely.

Soon, the Government will need an exit strategy, one that will probably involve mass surveillance, tracking and tracing of the general population while gradually reintegrating the immune, until a vaccine puts a definitive end to the outbreak. Before that point, officials will be constantly assessing whether to reimplement lockdowns or relax measures, depending on infective peaks and troughs, and health service capacity.

Herein lies a tragic irony of Covid-19. A virus that began in a communist dictatorship and spread unchecked for months, thanks to the CCP’s repression and misinformation, will involve free societies, in the short term, behaving more like China to achieve any semblance of normality. Firm sunset clauses will therefore be vital to ensure surveillance ends and data is destroyed when the temporary nightmare has passed. But we should be under no illusions; in this dystopian half-life, there are no perfect solutions, only unpalatable trade-offs.