Elimination is futile

New Zealanders became complacent, even a little arrogant, about the country's Covid-19 status. We managed to keep the disease at bay for more than a year since our last strict lockdown in March and April 2020. We had a couple of more localised and less severe lockdowns in Auckland and a recent one in Wellington, but those were short-lived and we almost forgot that this disease could return. Even when Australia had new outbreaks, we thought the impact on New Zealand would be limited to closing the border rather than being a sign of worse to come. That was until last week when the Ardern Government abruptly announced, on the basis of a single confirmed community case in Auckland, the highest level of lockdown for the entire country. The response seems justified in hindsight with more than 100 community cases now confirmed including some in Wellington.

Most of the rest of the world accepted a long time ago that an elimination strategy was futile and that some level of transmission in the community was not only manageable but would ultimately contribute to herd immunity. New Zealand and Australia thought differently and imagined that their geography could protect them. In the short term, the strategy was successful - both countries achieved zero community transmissions for a while, but at a cost of turning our countries into hermit kingdoms, which don't allow travellers from overseas unless they go through two weeks of confinement in an hotel room.

Most Covid-19 experts believe the disease will become endemic - in other words, it will never be completely eliminated. Thinking of this disease like smallpox, which the world has eliminated, is wrong - you need to think of it like the common cold, which is a coronavirus in many of its variants, or the more deadly influenza. We accept that these diseases are endemic and we are sceptical about claims of eliminating them. So why do we delude ourselves about eliminating the very similar Covid-19?

The more reasonable argument for locking down is that we are doing it until the population achieves herd immunity through vaccination. Unfortunately, the latest news from Israel, which vaccinated most of its population before anyone else, is that infections are now increasing amongst the vaccinated. This may be because the effect of the vaccines wanes over time or due to the more virulent strains such as the "delta" variant, but whatever the reason, we have to accept that for now vaccination isn't a reliable pathway to elimination.

If we are determined to lock down every time we have an outbreak, no matter how small, and we know that the disease cannot be eliminated, that means we will be locking down intermittently for the rest of our lives. Is this really what we want?

Let us not delude ourselves - locking down is a massive and unprecedented infringement of civil liberties. We are all effectively under house arrest. Never before have governments locked down entire populations including healthy people to combat a disease - not for the Black Death, the 1918 Influenza, the polio epidemics of the early 20th Century, or for SARS (Covid-1) in 2002. And notwithstanding how our prime minister presents it, this is not a we're-all-in-this-together, voluntary exercise - the lockdowns are being enforced by the agents of the state with draconian powers and brutal tactics.

I accept that restrictions on social interaction are necessary to combat epidemics, particularly those like Covid-19 that are highly infectious and transmissible while non-symptomatic. However, like all risk mitigations, there has to be a balancing of benefits against costs and a rational consideration of the alternatives. We cannot continue to lock down for the rest of our lives. As I wrote last year when we were in lockdown, it will destroy our economy, our "social cohesion" (to use a phrase our Government seems to be very fond of) and paradoxically our health (through delays and cancellations in treatments of other illnesses), at a cost that far exceeds the that of Covid-19 infections.

Sooner or later we have to have the courage to accept that elimination of Covid-19 is futile and that we can tolerate a level of transmission without the knee-jerk reaction of national lockdowns. The only question is when we will be prepared to accept that. If the Ardern Government had been more competent in negotiating the supply of vaccines and we had been at the front of the queue as they promised rather than the worst in the OECD for vaccination rates, then we might be in a stronger position to accept the ongoing risk of exposure to Covid-19. Add to that the fact that after eighteen months we still don't have a quarantine system that can reliably keep infected people entering New Zealand from infecting the wider community, and we have to conclude that if lockdown is really the only option still available to us, then Jacinda Ardern and her ministers are to blame.

Note: As I was writing this, I saw that Rodney Hide has published on his blog a rough cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns. He concludes that lockdowns are not worth two days of lost economic activity. While I think his analysis is overly simplistic, he's probably got the ratio about right.

Afghanistan is America's Suez Crisis

Twenty years after the United States invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime that was harbouring the architects of the 9/11 attacks, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is back with more territory and with the same murderous intent to subjugate its people.

What was the point of it all? President George W. Bush's stated intention was to destroy Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organisation that launched the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, which was based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. But it took until Barack Obama's presidency ten years later before a US special operations team eventually killed Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda (whom it turned out was actually being harboured by America's supposed ally, Pakistan). But cutting off the head of Al-Qaeda meant that, like a modern day Medusa, it spawned a dozen other evil organisations in Iraq, Syria, Mali and other Islamic countries.

Today, with Kabul, the Afghan capital, and most of the rest of the country again in Taliban hands (they now hold more territory than in 2001), Western nations scrambling to evacuate their diplomats and citizens from a chaotic Kabul airport, and local allies abandoned to the dubious mercy of the country's new rulers, it is indeed hard to know what the point of it all was. It's not even as though we in the West have taught the Islamic extremists in the Taliban any lessons other than about our own perfidy. By all reports, the Taliban is already settling scores, carrying out executions and demanding child "brides" from conquered communities. Far from being chastened, the Taliban is reiterating their commitment to the fundamentalist Islamic goal of a global caliphate.

The Americans might have had some humility in setting out on their Afghanistan adventure if they had a sense of history, for that country has been the graveyard of empires including the British in the 19th Century and the Soviets in the 20th Century. But the Western experience of Afghanistan goes back much further than that - all the way to Alexander the Great, who married an Afghani princess, Roxanne, to help ensure the compliance of the region's rulers once he had conquered it. Perhaps Joe Biden should have followed Alexander's example and sought a second wife from among the daughters of the Taliban leader, Abdul Ghani Baradar. In Biden's case, a young second wife might have had the added benefit of staving off his obvious senescence, although I suspect it is too late for that.

Here in New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seems to have taken on board some of that American hubris and is lecturing the Taliban from afar to uphold Western standards of human rights because "the whole world will be watching." I'm sure the Taliban leaders are quaking in their boots. Meanwhile, Ardern has ordered New Zealand soldiers and a Royal New Zealand Airforce C-130 Hercules aircraft to mount a mission to Afghanistan to evacuate New Zealanders from the country. Quite how she intends this will happen when not even the Americans can evacuate their people in an orderly manner, is beyond me, but an appreciation for the reality on the ground has never been Ardern's strong point.

I don't believe the United States should have occupied Afghanistan for twenty years. There was a justification for American troops entering the country following the 9-11 attacks to track down Al-Qaeda, but that should have been a special forces mission, not a wholesale invasion of the entire country. It is not that I think the United States was morally wrong to invade - I believe, as Ayn Rand said, that although it is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations but it has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses. 

The problem here is that it was in no one's interests, least of all that of the United States, to spend twenty years trying to establish a liberal democracy in a place that has no cultural traditions on which to build such institutions. What is worse is that the United States ruled through a system of corrupt, cronyist, favours - as Jacob Siegel quotes on Bari Weiss's excellent Common Sense substack, "the biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States". You can't establish a moral order by immoral means. But having occupied Afghanistan and destroyed its existing institutions, however illiberal they were, America's politicians and military leaders had a minimal obligation to leave the place no worse than they found it, and they can't even claim to have done that. President Joe Biden is responsible for the lives of the Afghans who helped the Americans during their twenty-year experiment in nation-building, many of whom will now be tortured, mutilated and killed for what the Taliban sees as their traitorous and blasphemous conduct.

The fallout of the fall of Afghanistan will last for years. America has shown that once again it lacks the national vigour, moral authority and self-belief to fulfil the objectives of its military interventions. Afghanistan is already being talked about as this generation's Vietnam. I think America's Suez Crisis might be a more accurate comparison, because it was that event that signalled the decline of Britain's imperial might more than any other. I feel sorry for the Afghans who must face the extreme theocratic and misanthropic whims of their new rulers, but I also feel a bit sorry for Americans, who must be bewildered at how the greatest military power in history has once again been made to look ineffectual and irrelevant.