Toby Green distils a key lesson from his engaging analysis of the global consensus in favour of lockdowns in the early phases of the Covid-19 pandemic: ‘the “collateral damage” has been so appalling that lockdowns of the kind that were trialled in 2020 should never again be implemented’ (p. 213). The ‘collateral damage’ Green documents covers a broad spectrum: from drastically exacerbated poverty and inequality through lost educational opportunities and life chances for young people, isolation of the aged and global increases in domestic violence and gender inequality, to the accelerated erosion of democracy and a growing acceptance of authoritarian rule.
His explanations and interpretations, while necessarily somewhat speculative, are generally thoughtful and plausible. Green is most persuasive when discussing: the exclusion of the social sciences – and social considerations more generally – from crucial early decisions to embrace lockdowns; how the early Chinese lockdown strategy became palatable to Western public health officials despite its violation of previously shared principles; and the catastrophic effects of lockdown policies in the global South. This includes the collapse of demand for exports, the weakening of the global remittance economy, drastic impacts on the informal sector, and ballooning indebtedness that promises more austerity in the future.
Less susceptible to confirmation through direct evidence, but still highly suggestive, are Green’s discussions of the following topics: Western alienation from death (in helping to explain the obsessive focus on minimizing Covid deaths at the expense of other sources of suffering); disillusionment in the global North towards democratic structures; the role of extreme political polarization in explaining why the political left largely supported lockdowns even though they exacerbated inequality and injustice; and the political threats posed by social isolation as a core condition for rising totalitarianism.
There are two areas of Green’s argument that could have been strengthened by a more robust engagement with the social sciences. First, he presents a strangely reduced and selective picture of twenty-first-century global capitalism. His formulations repeatedly suggest that capitalism is essentially composed of small family-owned businesses (both in the global North and the global South) on the one hand, and info-tech giants such as Facebook, Google and Amazon on the other. This misses a lot.
The second soft spot in the book’s argument regards Green’s analysis of power relations. His thoughts on authoritarianism and damage to democracy could profitably be brought into conversation with analyses of biopower and biopolitics inspired by Michel Foucault. These terms broadly refer to modern techniques – not least, public health measures – for regulating the demographic ‘life’ (and deaths) of populations. Among other things, this perspective has also inspired discussions that directly relate to Green’s hypothesis about the Western culture around death.
Such analyses of power also provide tools for thinking about what has changed since The Covid Consensus went to press in early February 2021. Since then, public discussions have shifted focus from lockdowns to vaccination. How well have Green’s claims been borne out or remained relevant since then?
The answer will, of course, vary markedly by region. That said, more information has emerged since early 2021 supporting Green’s broad conclusions on the human costs of lockdowns. In terms of the distribution of vaccines, the global South has thus far generally not been prioritized, continuing the pattern of disadvantage. Supplies are especially inadequate in Africa at the time of writing.
Politically, it may be tempting to discern signs that the initial authoritarian impulses Green documents are weakening. The shift in focus from lockdowns to vaccines has been accompanied by a more ‘liberal’ stance on the part of many governments: populations have been ‘responsibilized’ (Foucault) and, so far, vaccinations have not been made mandatory. However, caution is in order. As the vaccination of national populations on a voluntary basis has clearly failed to stop new waves of infection, pressure is building to make it mandatory as a condition for full participation in social and economic life. This policy promises to introduce a new polarizing rift into already splintering societies.
In short, Toby Green’s argument remains relevant on many points. Invocations of ‘science’ continue to project an illusory unanimity among experts and to exclude important social-scientific considerations. The left continues to dismiss opposition to Covid measures as fundamentally irrational and tainted by association with right-wing extremism. The qualitatively flexible utilitarian principle of the maximum good for the maximum number of people continues to be trumped by the (selectively and often rigidly applied) commitment to protect individual lives against death by Covid – no matter what the cost.
