Armchair critics

There's a lot of criticism in the press and the social media every day about the way in which the Covid19 crisis is being handled in the UK. If criticism has a positive purpose in pointing towards policy adjustments which will improve the situation, then that is all to the good. 

 

But a lot of criticism is not like that. We have to accept that this pandemic is a new situation where those in office are grappling with the unknown. We in our armchairs cannot know what it is like to carry the immensely heavy burden of decision-making in a rapidly evolving situation. When critics condemn the mistakes made up till now by politicians and their advisors, they are most likely benefitting by the fact that mistakes and errors of judgement are always easier to spot with hindsight. Hindsight is a luxury which should not be abused, especially if it only serves to make the public more anxious and worried by reading about the incompetence, carelessness or unwisdom of their leaders. Different experts have differing opinions about how the crisis has been managed. Some are likely to have been more right than others - but it's far easier to assess with hindsight who was right in the past, than it is to know with certainty who will be right with their advice about future policy.

So it is counterproductive to condemn those who made poor decisions in the past, if all it achieves is to generate worry and uncertainty about the competence of our present leaders and advisers. For better or worse we voted our leaders into office, quite recently, and we can't change that in the short run. For better or worse we have scientific and medical advisors who have been regarded as experts in their field, and we cannot know whether the situation would be improved or harmed if they were replaced. So if we feel like being armchair critics, let us beware of raising anxiety levels, which simply adds fuel to the crisis.