There is much to be lost in a pandemic, with Rupert Read recently writing we have an ethical obligation to adopt the precautionary principle. But the Covid-19 story in months and years to come will be told by those who recognise what might also be gained - and act early. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned the UK into a post-truth and proactionary state in all but name. Here are some handy definitions of the two highlighted terms that will be useful in what follows:

As soon as the UK recognized that COVID-19 posed a serious threat, the government began to proceed on two fronts at once. The ‘first order’ battle would be a fight against the virus itself. The ‘second order’ battle would be about defining the field of play in which the fight takes place. The first is a medical war, the second a media war. The government has understood from the outset that it might fare better in the media war than the medical war. More to the point, the media war might be of greater longer term significance in that it might encompass the medical war, especially if the UK ends up developing the first vaccine for the virus.

No doubt, this is a very ‘post-truth’ way of seeing things. It does not deny the truth as such, but it does deny that the truth means much without an agreed context that reveals its significance to all concerned. This point is most easily seen in the ambiguous standing of the numbers associated with, say, coronavirus deaths, tests and ‘personal protective equipment’ available to hospital and care workers. These numbers are bandied about by both friends and foes of the government, each wishing to turn them to their own advantage.