Behind the British Government’s response to the threat of a coronavirus epidemic there is a fundamental moral question. Can the few ever be sacrificed in the interests of the many? The Prime Minister made clear on Tuesday that a significant rise in the incidence of the disease was highly likely, whatever the effort to contain the outbreak. If the epidemic became serious, the public must expect their lives to be disrupted. About one per cent of those who catch the disease are at risk of death, and those most likely to die are the elderly and patients with already-existing conditions.
Writing in The Observer last weekend, Andrew Rawnsley pointed out that the anticipated disruption could have serious consequences. This would present a hard choice: “Should we take every measure available to try to counter the virus at whatever economic and social cost? Or are we better advised to take less stringent steps to minimise the impact on society, at the price of increasing the risk of infection and, for those most vulnerable to the virus, elevating the risk of death? This is the critical dilemma …”
04 March 2020, The Tablet
All must be protected
Get Instant Access
Continue Reading
Register for free to read this article in full
Subscribe for unlimited access
From just £30 quarterly
Complete access to all Tablet website content including all premium content.
The full weekly edition in print and digital including our 179 years archive.
PDF version to view on iPad, iPhone or computer.
Already a subscriber? Login