Put aside coercive quarantine

First published in the www.dissexpress.co.uk & www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday, March 5, 2020.

It takes a lot to topple Brexit, floods or Donald Trump as the main story, but a virus has done just that. 
For the last month or so, the predominant item on most news outlets has been the spread of COVID-19 from its suspected origins in Wuhan, China to dozens of countries.
At the time of my writing this column, the situation is as follows: 81,397 reported cases, of which 30,384 had recovered and 2,770 had died (Johns Hopkins CSSE). 
The commentariat has been piling in with a wide range of views as to how individuals, communities and governments should respond. There has been much talk about whether COVID-19 is a run-of-the-mill virus or something exceptional, the respective merits of voluntary or enforced quarantining and the effectiveness or not of face masks.
What is the libertarian approach as to how we should respond?
Well, as ever in these cases, my view starts from the core principle that the individual is the key actor here.  There has to be an overwhelming case as to why governments should remove the individual’s freedom to choose, even for a limited period of time.
S/he must be allowed the maximum liberty to respond as they see fit based on the emerging medical evidence. And with personal liberty comes, of course, personal responsibility. 
The current reported COVID-19 death rate is about 3% - equivalent to most winter influenzas in the UK. Most epidemiologists believe the actual figure is much lower, due to an under-reporting of mild cases where people quickly shake off its effects. 
So at this stage, any over-reaction by the British Government in taking away the liberty of whole communities as the Chinese authorities have imposed in Wuhan would be a disproportionate misuse of power and should be questioned.
Indeed, there are questions as to how effective the coercive quarantine around the city has been. It’s just not feasible to seal in a major city in the modern age. After all, the constant supply-chain of goods & services, both public & private, must surely be maintained?
The requirement to wear facemasks is not only another imposition: it is all about creating a perception of government action, with no proven medical benefits either to the wearer or anyone they come into contact with in terms of reducing transmission rates.
At this stage, I believe that the best approach remains empowering individuals to make the right decisions for themselves and others through clear fact-based advice and the provision of appropriate medical facilities when needed.
Although, there has been the occasional example of muddled messaging, the UK’s response to date has been both right and effective.
In the first place, this has focussed on repeating the importance of good personal hygiene, although I remain amazed as to why adults don’t know about this already.
Secondly, in the event that someone suspects they may be ill then the message is clearly self-isolate and seek medical advice remotely by contacting NHS Direct.
At this stage, I usually hear the objection that this runs the risk of people ignoring this advice either because they are irresponsible or because they have work or similar commitments to attend to.
Once someone discovers they have an illness, they want to know how to get better and to avoid getting others sick. And employers are hardly likely to want someone who may have COVID-19 come in a potentially infect other staff.
Thirdly, preparations need to be stepped up to ensure the provision of safe zones within hospitals to ensure the effective treatment of those who do fall seriously ill with COVID-19 and decide that self-isolation is no longer suitable for them.
Society has an ability and power of its own to bring about quarantine-like results without introducing the risk that the state’s power will be used and abused for its own aggrandisement.
Ends.