Letters | As China-style lockdowns travel around the world, time to stop calling them ‘draconian’

Lockdowns and travel restrictions have proved to be effective in fighting the spread of Covid-19. Curbing some personal liberties is justified when public welfare is at stake

Reading Time:2 minutes

Closed shops on a near-empty street in the northern English city of Leeds on March 30, as the UK observes a three-week lockdown amid fears life may not return to normal for six months or longer. Photo: AFP

Published: 7:20am, 5 Apr 2020Updated: 7:20am, 5 Apr 2020

One of the most overused words with regard to the coronavirus outbreak is the word “draconian”. A simple Google search will display a multitude of articles labelling any increase of governmental measures to quarantine a population as “draconian” or as a “loss of liberty”. But are these labels really fair?

In the early days of the epidemic, international media lambasted China’s quarantine as “excessive”, “harsh”, “brutal” and “draconian”. However, as the rest of the world faces growing outbreaks and imposes measures similar to China’s, it is clear that a lockdown is far from draconian, but simply necessary.

The adjective “draconian” is derived from Draco, the despotic lawgiver of ancient Athens. Under his brutal regime, death was the solution for most offences, from murder to stealing a cabbage. Since the 19th century, “draconian” has become synonymous with ridiculously harsh and stringent measures. The quarantines of today are far from being so.

In early February, journalists were reporting on the panic buying of toilet paper in Hong Kong and the “draconian” lockdowns in mainland China. Today, many in East Asia are starting to relax as the epidemic slows. While it is still premature to declare a sweeping victory against the coronavirus, it is evident that strict citywide lockdowns and travel restrictions constitute the most effective measures to fight the epidemic.

Statistical studies come to the same conclusion: large-scale social distancing could halve deaths and reduce peak health care demand by two-thirds. In contrast, a lack of urgent, determined action could overwhelm a nation’s health care system and spiral into a full-fledged crisis.

Alternatively, while Singapore was able to achieve low infection rates without mass quarantine, the city state was similarly criticised by international media for its forceful tracing and containment measures, which some journalists labelled as a loss of personal liberties.