A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic Laura Dodsworth (good books for 7th graders .TXT) 📖

spoke to, this government official told me exasperatedly that they were ‘at the end of [their] tether’ over the ‘indefensible’ policies enacted this year.

Also like the scientific advisor, this government source was cynical about the motivations behind the policies: ‘The government wasn’t worried about the virus, they were worried about the way the virus might ruin their PR credibility over the NHS. It all stems from the election campaign they ran on saving it. We had to make sure the NHS runs really well. Two months into government and this issue comes along which could fuck up the NHS. Lee Caine and Dominic Cummings had put it at the centre of the campaign and they couldn’t lose support and let that fail.’

Aside from Boris Johnson’s treatment in hospital, it’s easy to see why the government was so enthusiastic about the weekly ‘Clap for Carers’. Tribalism is an inherent part of human history. Football fans chant and sing, and sometimes they even pray for their team to win. (Is God really supposed to pick a side?) Building tribalism builds cohesion and conformity. People are more emotional and less rational when they are tribal. The weekly pot-banging was a tribal show of solidarity, venerating the NHS and its workers, who were central to the government’s election campaign, but there was also a Stalinist rhythm to it, which some felt but were nervous to confess to.15

The fears about the NHS might help explain the change of direction from the early plans to create ‘herd immunity’ and ‘cocooning’ the vulnerable to a full lockdown. But were ministers not frightened about the impact of the virus as well? In the main, my source said, ‘there was a fear of losing voter support,’ but, yes, ‘the health department was the most worried. Hancock is quite paranoid and a total “wet”. He’s a real panicker. He’s the kid in the playground who wouldn’t want to get hurt. And he’s in charge of the response.’

Over time, they said, the fear spread from the health department to the other departments, and they all fell under the spell of the SAGE scientists foretelling doom: ‘They’ve drunk the scientists’ kool aid. They’re scared. The government don’t have a malicious agenda, they just don’t know what they are doing. They don’t have a plan. The ministers in the cabinet think the vaccine is the best way to end it.’

The 10pm curfew for pubs was hugely controversial and it turned out was not evidenced. So why implement it? Transmission is not particularly driven by hospitality.16 My source said that the 10pm curfew decision was made even though ‘they knew they had no evidence. It was just considered a political win against the scientists, because the scientists wanted a full lockdown and the curfew was a compromise.’ I wonder what publicans will make of this compromise. The SAGE scientists’ spell might be breaking.

Just as some of the sources in this book decided they must remain anonymous for the safety of their careers, it is inevitable that politicians keep an anxious eye on their prospects. They are not anonymous. Every decision, every mistake will be examined under the media’s unforgiving magnifying glass and the inevitable future inquiry. The source who spends so much time at Number 10 tells me that our ministers fear ‘they’ll get hauled through the press for their own mistakes and that’s worse for them than ruining people’s businesses. They are scared of their own inquiry. And MPs don’t vote against the government’s lockdowns and tiers because they are worried about not being promoted.’ There is a lot of very human, very fallible fear behind the government’s decision to frighten us.

I spoke to MP Steve Baker in the summer of 2020. He also told me that the scientists had too much influence over the Cabinet Office, describing ministers as being ‘under a spell like King Theoden under the influence of Wormtongue’ in The Lord of the Rings. Baker may be a polarising figure, thanks to his well-documented support of a hard Brexit, but the issues around science, health, and behavioural psychology should transcend politics. The fact is that the response to Covid became hyper-partisan, as I discuss in Chapter 13, ‘The climate of fear’, and few politicians were expressing concerns about lockdown and the behavioural science aspects as early as Baker.

Baker told me that he considered lockdown was a ‘justifiable incursion’ on the liberties of the British people, in the context of a disease with significant consequences. In effect, the restrictions were justified at the beginning of the epidemic. How we were incited to follow the regulations was a different matter. When I asked him what he thought of the use of fear to encourage compliance with the rules he replied that, ‘in a free society we ought not treat people as if they are things to be managed. We ought not to use behavioural psychology to lead people in this manner. What’s happening now is consistent with dystopian novels. If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become.’

He has concerns about where we are heading: ‘Throughout all of this, what we had to do was be proportionate. It’s very difficult for me to say what should have happened, I wasn’t in the room and able to ask questions of officials. I’m clear that ministers should have had greater respect for civil liberty, the economy and other health concerns. I now think we’re into disproportionate territory. If we’re being really honest, do I fear that government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is. I went almost as far as saying that when I made a speech. Is this a totalitarian government? No. Do they believe they are liberals? Yes. And the pursuit of safety is our greatest danger at the moment.’

The pursuit of safety is our biggest danger, driven by fears