In broad terms, the neoliberals have argued for the reduction of government, stripping back of welfare systems, and freeing of markets. The neoliberal ideology proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices (Harvey, 2005, p2).
Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, new strains continue to emerge, posing a constant threat to human health. Although neoliberalism may have various flaws in the economic system (details in my previous blog), I still want to discuss the extent to which it can help to curb the COVID-19 pandemic in public health.
Epidemiological neoliberalism
Herd immunity is epidemiological neoliberalism. Much like the unconditional belief in the free market, herd immunity relies on the assumption that a pandemic is best overcome by leaving it unregulated. What might seem like a laissez-faire policy, is actually a refined and complex system of automated structural violence against the weak, which also shatters any possibilities of resistance.But just like neoliberalism, it results in violence against the weak and the poor: elderly and disabled people, homeless people, refugees and people with severe health conditions – many of whom are likely to also have a lower socio-economic status because of the correlation between poverty and illness. These are the people, who are at the highest risk of dying from COVID-19 – especially if the healthcare system is overwhelmed and doctors have to perform triage (Autore, 2020).
The initial reaction from most governments to the outbreak was an exercise in “epidemiological neoliberalism” (Frey, 2020). This policy bluntly exposed the politics of the whole project: pretend to do nothing while making sure that the “natural laws” of markets keep functioning, even if it means allowing people to get sick and die from “just another flu”. Encapsulated in the social-Darwinian “survival of the fittest” notion of “herd immunity”, this solution in practice consisted of voluntary behavioral guidelines – business as usual, just wash your hands and keep your distance (Šumonja, 2021). This, in effect, turned a social problem into an individual matter, thus shaking off any responsibility the authorities had for the public health crisis. When epidemic prevention has changed from a compulsory act to a personal moral issue, it is difficult to blame one person specifically because everyone has different moral values due to their level of education and cultural background.
Limited vs. unconstrained freedom
Eric Li (2021) raised the following issue:
“What good are individual rights if they result in millions of avoidable deaths, as has happened in many liberal democracies during the pandemic?”
After the initial peak of the outbreak, governments have also realized that measures such as travel restrictions and social distancing take precedence over guaranteeing unconstrained freedom for everyone.
The nine metrics used to calculate the Government Stringency Index are: school closures; workplace closures; cancellation of public events; restrictions on public gatherings; closures of public transport; stay-at-home requirements; public information campaigns; restrictions on internal movements; and international travel controls.
As we can see in figure 2, the vast majority of countries, with the exception of some in Africa, have index above 50, and the index are generally higher in developed countries than in developing countries.
A higher score indicates a stricter government response (i.e. 100 = strictest response). Although a higher score does not necessarily mean that a country’s response is ‘better’ than others lower on the index, to some extent, it implies the appropriateness or effectiveness of a country’s response.
However, comparing with figure 2 and figure 3 that people around the world are tired of the repeated outbreaks and that embargo restrictions in all countries have been reduced to varying degrees from May. Many countries adopted epidemiological neoliberalism to the pandemic, with governments pinning their hopes of containing the virus through vaccines rather than social isolation.
Nonetheless, I still believe that the blockade restrictions were relaxed not because the vaccine was effective enough, but because people could not stand the endless lockdown.
William R. Gallaher (2021, para.19-20), a scientist from the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, Louisiana State University Department of Health, states:
"I am, and always have been, a strong proponent of vaccines. My wife and I have been fully immunized and boosted as soon as humanly possible. Still, I feel compelled to warn that we may not be able to immunize our way out of this, as immune escape becomes increasingly prioritized as an evolutionary pressure in the generation of variants. We need to be careful about being addicted to our high tech solutions, that meet considerable resistance and global supply chain and delivery issues. As some countries have discovered, viral epidemiology 101, interrupting the chain of infection, is vital. Masking, handwashing, sanitizing and social distancing – keeping infected folks from uninfected folks – remains the surest path to reducing the reproduction number anywhere. Cheap. low tech and effective means can be most broadly applied globally. In the United States, we are on track to have 1,000,000 Americans dead from COVID, within basically two years of onset of the pandemic here. What was inconceivable here has become almost inevitable. That we are not doing every conceivable thing to stop this carnage here and globally is beyond unacceptable."
From the data above, it seems that neoliberalism cannot contain COVID-19. Similar to economic neoliberalism, epidemiological neoliberalism allows governments to delegate power to individuals while at the same time delegating responsibility to them. However, unlike financial giants who use this power to engage in unproductive accumulation, people with no medical expertise but enormous power can be misled by incorrect information, causing the epidemic to get worse.
But could we have beaten COVID-19 completely if governments around the world had imposed strict lockdown at the start of the outbreak (although this would have been impossible)? It is also hard to say. It is like the Cannikin Law, where the outcome depends on the shortest plank.
The pandemic is a special reminder that humankind is a community of shared destiny, that responsible and decisive government policies are necessary in the face of pandemic.
Useful Links:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Cases – Statistics and Research – Our World in Data
Policy Responses to the Coronavirus Pandemic – Statistics and Research – Our World in Data
References:
Autore, M, Corizzo, S, 2020. From health emergency to social crisis. International Viewpoint, 17 March, viewed in 15/12/2021. Available at: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article6454
Eric Li, 2021. Eric Li on the failure of liberal democracy and the rise of China’s way. The economist, 8 December 2021, viewed in 15/12/2021. Available at: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2021/12/08/eric-li-on-the-failure-of-liberal-democracy-and-the-rise-of-chinas-way
Frey, 2020. ‘Herd immunity’ is epidemiological neoliberalism. The Quarantimes, 19 March, viewed in 15/12/2021. Available at: https://thequarantimes.wordpress.com/2020/03/19/herd-immunity-is-epidemiological-neoliberalism
Harvey, D., 2005. The new imperialism / David Harvey., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Šumonja, M., 2021. Neoliberalism is not dead – On political implications of Covid-19. Capital & class, 45(2), pp.215–227.
William R. Gallaher, 2021. Omicron is a Multiply Recombinant Set of Variants That Have Evolved Over Many Months, viewed in 15/12/2021. Available at: https://virological.org/t/omicron-is-a-multiply-recombinant-set-of-variants-that-have-evolved-over-many-months/775