Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

How do we think about the UK lockdown debate? Show more Show less

The coronavirus pandemic has led to unprecedented isolation measures throughout the world. One effect has been the creation of ideological blocs across traditional party lines, lobbying for different approaches to containing the virus. UK lockdown came into effect on March 23, shutting down non-essential business and movement outside the home, bar a single daily outing for exercise. Critics variously describe this decision as too late, too little, too much and overblown. So, who are these groups, what do they stand for, and why?

The libertarian position, or 'End lockdown now!' Show more Show less

At the heart of this approach is the belief that lockdown is a violation of fundamental human rights. Its proponents range from the UK alt right, to high court judges, to commentators seeing the closure of British drinking holes as a bleak symbol of authoritarian rule.
< Previous (3 of 5 Positions) Next >

The pandemic will kill, lockdown or no lockdown

The coronavirus model to come out of Carnegie Mellon predicts that regardless of lockdown, the virus will create panic and kill huge numbers. Professor Wesley Pegden's model shows that unless large numbers of people are exposed at one time, lifting measures will cause the same harm as keeping them in place. In which case, why not end lockdown now?
< Previous (4 of 8 Arguments) Next >
Carnegie Mellon covid health law politics statistical model


The Argument

Keeping people in lockdown makes no difference to the effects of the pandemic. All it does is delay the inevitable. [1]

Counter arguments



Rejecting the premises


Further Reading



Explore related arguments

This page was last edited on Tuesday, 5 May 2020 at 19:53 UTC