One of the frequent complaints during and after the COVID19 pandemic was that the decision to bring in a lockdown, including and particularly the closure of churches was disproportionate and outrageous. The belief is that Governments used the pandemic as a pretext. To bring in draconian rules to restrict our civil liberties.
It has been suggested that the Non-Pharmaceutical-Interventions we saw were unprecedented, that we had not seen anything like this before, even in response to previous pandemics such as the 1918 “Spanish” Influenza and Bubonic Plague. Furthermore, I’ve frequently seen it argued that those previous pandemics were far more serious than COVID, that the COVID pandemic only really affected a small proportion of mainly very elderly people.
Now, when it comes to the seriousness of those previous pandemics, like for like comparisons are not necessarily easy. We live in a different context today. Was COVID mortality higher amongst those over 80 than among the young because it was a less serious illness or because of other factors. Things that we might want to consider when making that judgement include that:
- In 1918, at the end of World War I, many young people were living in close quarters to one another due to military billeting. [1]
- In the 21st Century, population demographics are somewhat older with a greater life expectancy.
- People are generally physically and medically healthier today than 100 years ago.
- The development of technology potentially made social distancing measures more feasible alongside the ability to monitor, track and trace the spread of a virus and quickly identify new waves.
So, it is difficult to second guess, especially for those of us who are not virologists or epidemiologists whether the two pandemics are comparable and whether or not the COVID pandemic would have been as lethal as the 1918 Influenza pandemic if we hadn’t had both vaccines and NPIs. What we do know is the following:
- In the UK, 227,000 people died from COVID-19 compared to 228000 from Spanish Flu in 1918.[2] That isn’t a direct equivalent because in 1918 the population was about 60% of todays. However, the numbers are not too dissimilar.
- The impact of COVID-19 was not just seen in mortality rates but in terms of the impact on already stretched health services and emergency care.
- Decisions had to be made at the time on the basis of probability and risk. The evidence at the time suggested that there was a serious risk of greater numbers of hospitalisation, the NHS being overwhelmed and even greater mortality rates.
Now, were measures taken unprecedented? Was it unprecedented for the church to comply with lockdown measures including restrictions on indoor gatherings? The answer to that is a straight “no” as I’ve outlined here. Those making such claims don’t have history on their side. Throughout history, similar steps have been taken in order to attempt to slow down the spread of pandemics. Furthermore, churches have tended to cooperate and even take the lead at such times.
Here is the challenge for us. Governments had to respond to the best medical evidence and advice that they had at the time, to make decisions. Revisiting those decisions with the benefit of hindsight is complex. An enquiry like the one currently being held will wisely stay out of second guessing whether the decisions were correct. However, it will ask whether the processes, systems and personnel involved meant that decisions were being made on the right basis -i.e. were the politicians acting primarily on the evidence available or were they too often driven by political factors.
There is a suspicion on all sides, that decisions were made as much because of political influences as by medical ones. I believe that when you look back at the debate, there were signs that all sides from lockdown sceptics to the Zero COVID position were substantially influenced by political philosophy.
The question we need to consider is to what extent we were influenced as Christians and churches by political philosophy. Now I write this as someone whose own political philosophy leans towards the Libertarian end of things. Right at the beginning of 2020 as news of a potential pandemic emerged, I was among those who would have preferred us never to have lockdowns and indeed thought it would not be necessary. Indeed, I remain of the view that if certain measures had been taken much earlier then a full UK wide lockdown in 2020 may not have been necessary or not needed for so long. However, it quickly became clear that something along the lines of a lockdown would be needed. Our church, along with others had already taken the decision not to meet in person for a period of time, even before the full lockdown was announced.
The crucial thing is this. As church leaders, our responsibility was first towards God’s Word nand then in the light of God’s Word to understand what our response should be to the common grace medical and scientific evidence as well as the authority of governments should be. The question we need to reflect on is how well we did at that?
What this means then is that we should also be careful now about stoking up outrage when that outrage lies more with our political sympathies than the Gospel.
[1] See on this Retrospect and Context: One Scientist’s Thoughts on Comparing COVID-19 to the 1918 Flu Pandemic | Pfizer
[2] Fatalism and an absence of public grief: how British society dealt with the 1918 flu | British Politics and Policy at LSE
Faithroots 