A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic - Laura Dodsworth (the first e reader .txt) 📗

His great success with schools was preventing the use of masks in schools, at least initially. He was adamant that teachers and pupils should not wear masks in classrooms, telling me, ‘younger kids’ speech and communication needs are predicted on being able to see an adult’s mouth when they are talking. We take in so much when we interact with people: the non-verbal, eyes and mouth. It’s massive if you take away half of people’s faces. There isn’t any empirical evidence because this is all new, but we can relay theories about human development. Young people and children could be hugely affected. Masks dehumanise people.’

Given that he thought masks dehumanise people, and that the evidence that they help prevent transmission is weak, I wondered how the SPI-B advisors felt about them? I was not surprised that he told me that the group was split. As he said, ‘they are not a panacea and the evidence is not clear cut’. But he told me that some of the group like masks because they convey a message of ‘solidarity’. In other words, there is a behavioural science ‘reason’ for wearing masks, to increase a sense of collectivism. This is a feeling favoured by the psychologists that is entirely unrelated to the scientific evidence regarding transmission. Essentially, they want us to feel like we are ‘in it together’.

During the course of writing this book I spoke to Morgan a few times. I liked him. He was open, where others were sometimes guarded, and he enjoyed the process of our ‘interviews’ because they encouraged him to look at different perspectives. When I spoke to him again in early 2021 I got the impression his involvement had been dialled down a little.

The government gave very strong guidance that secondary school pupils should wear masks in classrooms when schools reopened on 8 March 2021. I asked him what was behind this new policy. ‘It’s gone quiet. We’ve gone from regular meetings to just being commissioned for different projects,’ he said. ‘There was no consultation about face masks in schools.’ I asked him why. ‘I don’t know. I have raised the questions a few times with other SPI-B members and with people who also sit on SAGE. We don’t know why we weren’t consulted.’

It seemed strange that the government had a willing educational psychologist ready and waiting to provide pro bono advice, and not to take advantage. I asked if he thought he wasn’t being consulted because he gave the ‘wrong sort’ of advice. He paused and then offered a diplomatic answer: ‘It’s becoming more streamlined which is sensible.’ Right, but he’d fought hard to prevent masks being used in classrooms before – were they weeding out the wild cards? ‘Maybe,’ he agreed.

I wondered what he thought of this U-turn on masks in classrooms. He reiterated the same kind of points he’d made before, perhaps expressed even more strongly. He pointed out that, ‘masks aren’t even questioned any more, it’s like a seatbelt in a car.’ What the public would tolerate, accept, and even wanted, had shifted.

At this stage, an unevaluated mass-testing programme had also started in secondary schools, with pupils taking three tests to return to school, and thereafter two per week. I asked him what he thought about the impact of this. ‘It’s one more thing that schools are being asked to do,’ he told me. ‘Fair play to teachers, they are doing it, but they do roll over without any challenge. It assuages the government; they are trying to keep parents on board and reassure people it is safe to go back to school.’ But what about the pupils? How did he think this might make them feel? ‘Anything invasive like that feels like a threat. We don’t send children to school to be prodded. And for what end really? I don’t know if mass testing will do any good.’

Morgan was the only SPI-B advisor I spoke to who emphasised that we should have been thinking about the finish line from the beginning: ‘There was a lot of positive goodwill about wanting to lock down and we rushed into it. I cautioned that we would need an exit plan.’

I asked if they were thinking yet about the exit plan? He said no. Depressingly, he commented that, ‘We’ve seen how much people are willing to give up their freedom since March.’

I asked him how we would alleviate fear and get back to normal. I had the feeling that he agreed with me that we should try and get back to normal, in contrast to Clifford Stott. He hoped that a vaccine and ‘track and trace’ would help, but ultimately the greatest aid to encouraging compliance and reducing fear would be ‘open, honest and truthful’ government. He didn’t seem at all convinced we’d get that.

We talked about the fear that enabled this trading of freedom for a sense of security. Morgan admitted to me, like SPI One had, that he had feared catching Covid at the beginning. People seem to enjoy being scared – at times – and I mused that perhaps the response to Covid had revealed a craving for existential crisis that had not been met since the Second World War. Was there a deeper psychological need being expressed through this fear? He responded that ‘people like being scared. Think about rollercoasters and horror films. They are enjoyable because we know they are safe but provide a vicarious sensation of fear. We don’t have to go out hunting any more, we’re not scared of being attacked anymore.’ So perhaps the muscles of our evolutionary fears needed flexing…

By the autumn Morgan’s fears had evolved and he worried that ‘important aspects of human society are being taken away. If this goes on much longer we will lose our culture. If that’s taken away, then what are we? My fears have changed over six months.’

SPI Two is the other member of SPI-B who could only speak