Multitasking

 

The 'Shit Taped Together At The Bodegona' phenomenon appears to have leaked out onto the streets of Antigua...

Awkward Freedom

How much much does abnormality need to impinge on our existence before normality caves in? This is a very 2020 question.

In his account of a tour of Mexico's border towns a couple of years ago, Paul Theroux repeatedly expresses amazement at their 'civic pride' amidst all the cartel violence. In effect, it appeared that he could not quite cope with the levels of everyday normality he kept encountering.

This weekend I read that 1 in 500 people in New Jersey have died this year from covid-19.

In a town of 500,000 this would equate to something like 1000 deaths over the course of 10 months, actually somewhat more extreme than the prevailing stats for violent fatalities in Mexico's notorious border communities. Has 'normalcy' duly collapsed in New Jersey? I suspect not.

A major part of the 2020 narrative has been so-called complacency — people going out and acting normal when they supposedly shouldn't. From this perspective civic-mindedness involves self-isolation, rather than picnics in the park or museum visits.

Yet when he wrote The Plague in 1947, Albert Camus seemed to grasp something vaguely counter-intuitive: that the more calamitous the circumstances around us, the more we feel the urge to break out and enjoy the moment. 

He seemed to be suggesting that there is a fundamental human instinct at play here that transcends blinkered selfishness. In his novel we come across a 'parade' of young people on the streets attempting to demonstrate a "passion for living that grows in the midst of great misfortunes", a pervasive inclination which deepens as the plague takes an ever more profound hold on the locked-in city of Oran. 

"When they saw that it was serious, they remembered the enjoyment. All the anguish which is painted in the daytime on the faces is then resolved, in the fiery and dusty twilight, in a sort of haggard excitement, an awkward freedom which infects a whole people."

I am reminded too of Antony Beevor's extraordinary account in Downfall  of the grand apocalyptic blowout that took place in Hitler's Berlin bunker as the Soviet's closed in.

What's done to us...

Spinoza believed that thoughts of personal mortality were rarely conducive to freedom: “A free man thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life.”

Which is perhaps why, in times of war and pandemic, freedom tends to become the hot topic of the day.

In 2020 the most visible public reflection of this sort has been done by libertarians, of both the smart and the dumb sort.

Much of this has looked a lot like denial. As if the world’s sudden veering sharply away from near optimal conditions for their sort of planned existence, has somehow to be shouted down or confounded with dubious observations posing as useful data.

Like a lot of formalised freedoms in the western tradition, theirs kind of depends on everyone having more or less the same idea what freedom means, and so, in a sense, is not really freedom at all.

In my parents’ early days, when the world undoubtedly faced an even more extreme set of circumstances, the ones doing the high profile thinking were mostly a new lot called Existentialists, but the interwar years had seen a proliferation of navel-gazers, all generally caught off guard by the advent of WWII. The English surrealist poet David Gascoyne, living in Paris, sounded seriously pissed off in his diary: ‘What is so detestable about war is that it reduces the individual to complete insignificance.’

Sartre understood the moment when it hit him. In The Reprieve set during the months leading up to the conflagration, he spoke of “a hundred million free consciousnesses, each aware of walls, the glowing stump of a cigar, familiar faces, and each constructing its destiny on its own responsibility.”

The imminent possibility of death and reflections thereof might not mean an end to freedom, as Spinoza had warned, but they sure change some of the fundamentals. The essence of Sartre’s post-war thinking on the topic was encapsulated thus: “Freedom is what we do with what is done to us”.

And now, a new generation has learned that history is not merely something that we ‘witness’ on our screens. Sometimes it becomes the very incarnation of a set of challenges to our basic preconceptions and rather annoyingly elects to move in with us for a while. 

 

 

Vacas and Vacunas

Spanish-speakers will probably be alert to the shared root of the words for cow and vaccine. 

At the end of the eighteenth century British zoologist Edward Jenner had observed how milkmaids seemed to be immune to smallpox. 

He subsequently established that this immunity appeared to be conferred by the pus from their cowpox sores, a disease contracted occupationally, which in turn had been transferred to the cattle by horses which were vulnerable to an ailment known as 'the grease'. 

In 1796 Jenner injected this cowpox pus into the arm of James Phipps, son of his gardener, and thus the world's first vaccine was born.

The institution of slavery had a hand in modern medical advances as slaver ships often carried scientific observers who would duly note all the relevant symptoms generated by different afflictions that became rife below decks in the hold. 

But in Latin America at least, slavery would also play a key role in the way Jenner's vaccine was distributed. 

The story is told in a fascinating footnote in this rather wonderful book by Greg Grandin...

“In 1803, after his daughter died from the disease (smallpox), Spain’s King Carlos IV ordered its vaccine (a practical version had been recently fabricated by the British) to be disseminated throughout his dominion. Francisco Xavier de Balmis, the doctor who headed the royal expedition appointed to carry out the task, decided it was best to transport the vaccine live. Twenty-two foundlings aged three to nine were boarded on a ship: doctors made a small incision on the arms of two of them and inserted a mixture of lymph and pus, which after a few days produced the pustules that would provide the material to vaccinate the next two boys. The procedure was repeated until the ship reached America. Once there, the foundlings were feted and praised, laid at the foot of church altars, and adopted by the king himself as “special children of the country.” But Balmis’s team didn’t have the funds to cover all of Spanish America. It turned to the one institution that already reached across the far-flung realm: slavery.

“In Havana, Balmis bought four young slave girls, whom he used to send the vaccine to the Yucatan (once they performed their service, the two girls were sold). At first, slaves were sent on journeys specifically organized to transport the vaccine. But as time passed, it became easier just to use already established commercial routes, sending the vaccine “arm to arm of the blacks” who were being shipped as cargo. Portugal had from the beginning relied on African slaves to get the vaccine across the Atlantic, sending it to Brazil in the arms of seven enslaved children. It was then taken to Río de la Plata in a shipment of thirty-eight vaccinated slaves who were to be sold in Montevideo. An African woman “with pustules in perfect development” carried the vaccine to Buenos Aires. And from there, slaves took the “miracle discovery”—which made slavery much more profitable for slavers—through the rest of Argentina, over the Andes, and into Chile.

“Interestingly, before the Spanish began to disseminate the vaccine through the arms of orphans and slaves, the naturalist Alexander von Humboldt reported that young African slaves and Native American cow herders on the slopes of the Andes knew that exposure to the tubercles of cow udders protected them from the pox. Africans and Indians, Humboldt said, “display great sagacity in observing the character, habits, and diseases of the animals with which they live.”

Tenet (2020)

In Nolan's latest some people are going forwards, others backwards, but it's the stuff that comes in sideways that proves the most frustrating.

I remember that the second time we watched Inception we enjoyed it in terms of both visual and intellectual content as much as we had the first time. Sitting through Tenet again would seem like a chore, though a chore made almost necessary in order to work out what the $%&# is going on.

 

There's nothing wrong with a bit of difficulty, or even disorientation per se. In The Existentialist Café, Sarah Bakewell has this little anecdote: “Hans Jonas, who studied with both Husserl and Heidegger, remarked in a later radio interview that Heidegger was by far the more exciting of the two. Asked why, he replied that it was largely ‘because he was much more difficult to understand." 

Opacity can of course be strangely thrilling, as I noted recently in a social media post about about one of my favourite lecturers at Cambridge, John Dunn, emeritus Professor of Political Theory at King's, whose labyrinthine sentences, both spoken and on the page, seemed like the main reason for attending them. 

Heidegger's game, specifically, was to make the familiar feel unfamiliar and vice versa (and thereby philosophically invigorating) via a set of ultimately very modernist techniques in the idiom he was using. 

Hardcore Christopher Nolan fans will no doubt be getting much of what they crave from Tenet, even if the director appears to be stooping to self-parody at times. 

Yet there are smart films that even if they don't make the viewer smarter, do get them thinking. Tenet is complex, but in the end its complexities appear to amount to little more than a sort of cinematic fairground ride. 

The best smart time travel movie we've seen in the last couple of decades was Spanish: Cronocrímenes. It toyed with paradoxes, sent multiple versions of its characters chasing around a confection of timelines, and yet never left us feeling lost. 

2004's Primer was more of a mind mangler, but I ended up convinced that Shane Carruth (at least) had a comprehensive grasp of the physics (and metaphysics) he was playing with, something I doubted about Nolan at various stages of this ride. And there's nothing especially meta about any of the physics here in the end. 

There's also some serious mission creep going on. At the beginning it seems that only fairly little stuff can be inverted, but soon major characters are also going through the revolving MacGuffin and travelling in reverse time. 

This is still reverse 'real' time however, and it is not until the final act that the possibility of larger shunts backwards are suggested. Yet these inherently open up all sorts of potential plot holes. And it is never adequately explained why the pointy heads of a distant future would pick our time, supposedly at some distance from their own, to begin the wholesale inversion. 

And what would inverting time's arrow actually do for the future civilisation and its messed up world? Would they need special respirators? Would their new inverted environment appear so to them? Cars seem to invert when inverted people board them. What else? And so on.

If there is an open philosophical question at the end it is the one about whether all these loops are open or closed. The Protagonist stumbles upon it quite early on and is reassured by Neil, but this same character later pronounces wistfully 'What's happened, happened'. That Nolan intends this one to remain open is signalled by the fact that, for me at least, he has left a bit of a loose end — the lacuna between the moment the Protagonist takes a pill and the moment he wakes up with all his teeth.

Anyway, the best thing about the movie is Robert Pattinson's Neil, in part because he's the only character who seems to be speaking, and emoting, like an actual human being.

John David Washington is excellent too, but the role is restrictive. Elizabeth Debicki is playing a character that is inherently hard to sympathise with on many levels. She seems to specialise in females bored and disgusted with a life attached to wealthy male bullies: here as Sir Ken's wife, in The Night Manager as Hugh Laurie's elfin moll and in The Crown as Lady Diana. You'd have to think that in any future movie about the Trumps...

The Plague (1)

Exile. A condition mostly associated with wandering around, usually quite freely, away from a fixed point in space. 

Yet in The Plague Albert Camus hits on the fact that sometimes it is when our freedom of movement is at its most limited that this sense of displacement takes hold, perhaps because it is subtly informed by time as well as space. 

"It was the feeling of exile that this hollow that we constantly carried in us, this precise emotion, the unreasonable desire to go back or on the contrary to press the march of time, these burning arrows of memory.”

I think you can probably detect, as I did, that there is something a bit off about this English translation, so it wasn't long before I switched to Castellano, a language into which the French shifts rather more naturally and elegantly. 

Further examples to follow. Soaked characters. The translator was really even trying there. 

Before I tucked into this novel I was unaware that it is widely understood as an allegory for the rise of fascism, so it is in some ways a doubly deserving read for 2020. 

As far as I know, Camus never directly experienced the constrictions of an epidemic, but he apparently had a good idea of their psychological effects on a community in quarantine — specifically how they mess with everyone's conditioned sense of past, present and future.

I've been living away from the place of my birth for many years now, and it could be argued that a sense of exile has been slithering up to me. Brexit in 2016, changed family circumstances back in the UK and so on. But the pandemic and 'partial confinement' have crystalised its presence in my psyche. 

There's a time and a place for everything...

I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of sentient existence and specifically the nature of time over the years and have reached certain tentative conclusions.

Calling them beliefs might be a step too far, but they are undoubtedly fairly strong suspicions. They are not ideas that have been served up to me whole by parents, schoolteachers and so on, but the result of a more personal trail of ruminations and digestions.

Diego Maradona died this week in 2020. Jules Caesar was assassinated on March 14, 44BC. Just over 2000 years separates this pair of events in subjective time, yet my suspicion that these deaths, and every other death, ever, occur at precisely the same moment in what I might refer to as objective time.

This is one reason why I do not believe in ghosts, at least not in the traditional sense, though I can see why the fundamentally concurrent nature of objective time, at least from a perspective usually unavailable to all of mutable existence, might lead to certain phenomena described by enthusiasts of the paranormal.

This intuition is also why I do not believe that my parents or any other departed friend, relative or pet, is waiting for me in “another place”. Indeed while I believe them to be dead to me subjectively, it would be just as reasonable to say that they are as alive in their particular time and place in the cosmos, just I currently am in mine. 

One day I too will die and my subjective consciousness will collapse into that singularity of objectivity.* 

And if you want to know what happens after that, you might well be missing the point.

For if you examine this matter with a degree of intellectual honesty, it's very hard to see the point of anything resembling subjective time in the next world. 

*You could challenge that this is just a polite way of referring to nothingness, but like one of the great progenitors of all western metaphysical thinking, Parmenides of Elea, I do not believe in nothingness. 

 

 

Coffee and Tamales

The velatorio for Diego Maradona in Buenos Aires yesterday afternoon seemed to be going more or less as expected, perhaps a little less solemn than your average Guatemalan equivalent, when a perimeter breach at the Casa Rosada set off a full desmadre a lo Argentino around the Plaza de Mayo. 

Cue water cannon, rubber bullets and tear gas (though many people did seem to be crying already). 

Silly Old Fart 0, Large Jet of Water 1

Defining Moments

It's a bit of a shame that two moments in the Estadio Azteca have become so dominantly emblematic of the talent and spirit of Diego Maradona, one beautiful, the other less so.

For Pelé, the World Cup clip that is always shown seems to be a goal he DIDN'T score, also against England and also in Mexico (Estadio Jalisco) in 1970, where Gordon Banks pulled off an extraordinary save.

The constant repetition of the quarter finals of Mexico '86 is somewhat problematic because, even though Lineker pulled a late goal back (something that seems forget-able) England were never really in that match.

The Hand of God is thus almost irrelevant because Number Ten and his ten henchmen deserved to win and deserved to go on to take the Cup. An England victory that evening would have been an historical travesty.

Not long before passing Diego himself dictated that VAR (Validatory Argentinian Revenge?) would not have overruled his opener.

Time to be Implacable

One of the themes covered amply in the first fifth of The Plague by Camus is whether politicians and their associated medical advisors have a duty to act ‘implacably’ even before they have the fullest understanding of the extent of the dangers a particular epidemic could present.

It would seem there is a potential for disconnect between reality and the worst case scenario that has to be managed politically. Trump, for example, ultimately 'managed' the summer’s emerging disconnect by claiming credit for lives saved, in effect the arithmetical result of subtracting actual excess mortality from the dire predictions of early models. 

More broadly the Right tends to use the disconnect to somewhat stealthily scorn the models themselves and the scientists behind them, blaming them for an overreaction that they attempt to quantify both economically and also in terms of a more hidden mortality. 

Yet it is clear that politicians that responded according to Dr Rieux’s calculations in the novel, have had superior outcomes over the course of 2020. 

Wait and see and then speak and act in the appropriate measure, might sound reasonable, but it is a recipe for an unholy mess. Right now an American is dying every 40 seconds. Before the festive season i.e. after Thanksgiving, it may soon be like 9-11 on daily repeat.

That same debate in front of Oran’s Prefect in The Plague, features another fairly important notion. Opinions ought to be valued according to how much they make us reflect, not by how much they concord with our preexisting ones.

It may be especially important to remember this on a day staff members at Random House had a collective hissy fit about their employer's plans to publish the latest tome from Jordan Peterson, darling of anti-progressives in the English-speaking world. 

If this were just a story about the employees of a publisher objecting to the contents of a book, it would be disturbing enough (at what stage did we teach the next generation that it is OK to try to suppress all opinion that one disagrees with?), but no, they have no idea what the book actually says, it is just that its author is an 'icon of white supremacy'. 

There may come a day when the Left rather deeply regrets taking this principled stance on stuff it doesn't like, as fanatical censorship is notoriously versatile. 

There is real intellectual jeopardy here. There is a danger that anglophonic reflection will become largely unworthy of the name as it becomes barricaded into two distinct and righteous redoubts with a barren no man's land in between.

The Silence by Don DeLillo

DeLillo's latest, a novella of just over one hundred pages, is long enough to be both imperfectly stimulating and imperfectly annoying. 

It's set amidst a very sudden and simultaneous end to human technology, loosely defined, emblemised by a blank screen on Superbowl night, 2022.

It begins a little earlier on a flight from Paris to New York which features a couple of factual inaccuracies about such a situation which irked me in a way that I was never going to get over in a mere 90 pages.

DeLillo is old enough to recall a world without email, a world where many are yet to invest so much of themselves outside of themselves, in cyberspace. When we founded our company in the early 90s, it's most replicated function was to persuade clients to adopt email, to inhabit the interwebs. Did we really help bring about an irreversible change? Would a sudden return to the world my parents were born into be so utterly apocalyptic?

"E-mail-less. Try to imagine it. Say it. Hear how it sounds. E-mail-less.”

One of the characters is a young physicist fixated on Einstein and relativity and sits squarely at the intersection of the stimulating and annoying in this book. As far as the former state of mind goes, I gathered that DeLillo was asking if technology is all that underpins our sense of a shared present and that without it, we'd be locked into a terrifying subjectivity.

Still, there's something rather #firstworldproblems-y about this scenario, or at least something suggestive that the USA's problems are inherently bigger problems than anybody else's.

One line will however stick with me, resonating perhaps more for the specific personal and collective moment in which I came across it...

"Life can get so interesting that we forget to be afraid."

The Glass Kingdom by Lawrence Osborne

An enjoyably unsettling karmic-noir novel set in a decadent (and decaying) luxury apartment complex during times of political upheaval in Bangkok. 

The most developed character in the story is the city itself. 

My one experience of the Thai capital occurred a decade ago, and was both striking and limited, as I showed up at precisely one of these moments of conflict and curfew. As I collected my boarding pass at Narita the JAL check-in agent admonished me thus: “Bangkok...dangerous”, a movie reference which tickled me at the time.

Lawrence Osborne’s Bangkok is indeed a subtly dangerous place to exist as a foreigner of fluctuating purpose and identity. None of the western characters here are properly aware of how over-ripe tropical biology and sociology are slowly usurping their high-rise sanctuary. (Which turns out to be the author's actual current abode.)

Some of the protagonists turn out to be dramatic dead-ends, and yet are no less welcome acquaintances, such as Ximena, the Chilean chef. (Curiously, The Kingdom most reminds me of a complex called Infinity in downtown Santiago of which I have three times become a short-term resident.)

Even Goi, the access-all-areas apartment cleaner seems to offer plot potentialities which decline along with the entire environment.

I can now confirm that stories set in such blocks are almost as appealing to me as those set in old luxury hotels.

Greenland (2020)

Rather like a Roland Emmerich blockbuster catastrophe movie with the volume turned down to slightly more bearable levels. 

Director Ric Roman Waugh has previously pulled off a similar trick with Gerard Butler’s ...Has Fallen franchise.

It’s fundamentally silly — a comet breaks up above the Earth taking out first Tampa and Bogotá before settling on an ‘extinction level event’ — yet grounded in a likeable family trio, and in Butler and Baccherin, one would have to say, lie the film’s principal strengths.

Biden Wins!

They might just have to build him another White House to govern from though.

Or maybe they can take the Donald from his bed in the real White House one night — just after he dozes off watching Fox News — and upload his 'consciousness' into a simulation where America is eternally great again and he's winning and tweeting like his life depends on it.

We'd get all the content but none of the consequences. 

So the return to what they call normalcy up there wouldn't seem quite so 'meh' after all.

That Cheshire Cat smile is trending on CNN right now. The panelists are totally wetting themselves.

Can we?

 

i.e. there has to be some basic level of denial that we can all hang on to, surely?

Trump, it turns out, was on to something when he suggested that from November 3 onwards nobody in the US was going to hear much more about covid. 

One thing we have learned this week, it is possible to report over 100,000 new cases along with over 1100 fatalities daily, and for hardly anybody to be all that bovved.

The Superfluous O

 

Transatlantic Comparisons

I guess it's never really occurred to me quite like this before, but on US election night this year I realised other ways in which our British system of parliamentary elections is generally preferable to the American electoral college. 

The broadcasting of partial results is really not a good idea, this year in particular. 

Whatever flaws the US might have as a mature modern democracy are clearly being exacerbated right by a system whereby an incumbent would-be autocrat can exploit the fact that upwards of a third of the electorate might not really understand the process of vote counting.

Then there's the fact that whether Biden wins the college by one vote or a hundred, he ends up with pretty much the same set of super powers. 

Compare this to our former PM Theresa May, who was still PM, but a very different sort of PM, already a bit more former, after the general election she called which duly led to a loss of the Tory majority she'd inherited. 

It may well be possible to pry Trump's arthritic fingers off the White House and replace them with Biden's, but what America and the world is not going to get right now as part of the process is a clear rejection of everything that has happened over the past four years. 

And maybe it will find it needed that even more than it needed a narrow Democrat win in 2020.

There's one other thing. This lame duck business is also non-optimal. In the UK if the opposition wins a majority No10 has a new resident almost immediately. 

Even a beaten Trump gets to be the world's most powerful man until January. Can you imagine the trouble he's going to cause, not least as he will still be in overall charge of the federal covid response. 

It would be like the Russians showing up in Berlin in 1945 and telling Hitler he could still run Germany from his bunker for another month or so.

And can anyone really imagine the Donald is going to give a dignified concession speech any time before hell freezes over? 

This in turn would be like the Pope appearing at the Vatican balcony and announcing that, on balance, he's no longer quite so sure about this whole God business after all.

Walls have ears?

My neighbour is finally building his own wall after eight years of the sort of resistance to the very notion that one could only describe as dogged. 

Back in March 2018 his wife and her lawyer both fibbed to a judge when they 'gave faith' that the relevant paperwork had been filed at the Ayuntamiento — in effect perjuring themselves. 

One night the following year (Tuesday October 8, 2019, if one has to be specific), after some shapeless, multidirectional vituperation in the garden, he came up close to the border and held a very loud and very staged altercation with his little boy that went thus: 

'Are you going to build the wall Johnny? Are you going to build the fucking wall? Over my dead body.' *

So perhaps you can understand why I've had little sense of optimism that he'd ever be getting around to this basic legal responsibility. 

Can't wait to see what the wall looks like when it is done...

* We were having dinner in our colonnaded gallery area when we were treated to this little piece of amateur dramatics. Have to admit I've had that wav file on repeat recently for its sheer entertainment value. 

Rebecca (2020)

I'm unfamiliar with both antecedents, the original du Maurier novel and Hitchcock's first American feature, which he is said to have despised, yet is widely considered a classic nowadays.

There's something very 'off' about Ben Wheatley's adaptation for Netflix. For a film essentially made for the small screen it is odd that it appears to be striving to please aesthetically above all other considerations.

The setting seems skewed as well. I have cine footage of my mother's holidays in the South of France dating to the same period the book was written (late 30s) and the costumes don't look right at all.

And as a British director, I would have expected Ben Wheatley to handle better the presentation of pre-war social tropes. Yet on the matter of class this movie is basically tone deaf.

The two most naturally posh British thesps in the production — Lily James and Kristin Scott Thomas — the lady's companion and the housekeeper, should somehow have been flagged as lower middle class for the drama to function effectively for British viewers. And none of those playing supposed toffs have any of the right manerisms.

As Maxim, Armie Hammer is a sort of cardboard cut out of an eligible bachelor without ever convincing as an English landed gent of the period. None of the staff at Manderley seem to have a Cornish accent, although I recall one that is full on "Oive got a brand new combine 'aaarvester".

As I said, I have not been exposed to any other variant, but the plot seems to overflow with opportunities for cloaking the characters with pointed moral ambiguity, and these are largely squandered here. The transition point in Maxim's place in the story is handled especially anaemically.

The whole thing is saved in the end simply by being rather pleasing on the eye and because, of course, Scott Thomas is fabulous as Mrs Danvers.

Health by stealth

By now over half of the UK population is covered by Tier 2 or 3 restrictions, so the local approach might actually be called a national lockdown by stealth.  

There’s already talk of finding a new name for the so-called ‘circuit breaker’ so that it could be implemented with minimal government embarrassment. 

Meanwhile, the so-far more stringent approach in the north is not only undermining recent Tory advances up there, it is allowing regional/municipal Labour leaders to argue that the Westminster government is sacrificing northern jobs in order to protect the economy of the south, handily raising the dread spectre of Maggie Thatcher. 

In general polls indicate that the majority of British people support tough restrictions to keep the NHS afloat, but this is a bit like asking an evangelical protestant of hypocritical bent if they believe in the literal truth of the bible. The NHS is a virtual religion in Britain, so of course people will pay lip service to the need to preserve its integrity whilst barely adjusting their own selfish behaviours. 

Boris came to power by opportunistically allying himself with the populist streams of political thought in the country, yet the pandemic has rather rudely detached him from them (the same people who supported Brexit are predictably now into mask-free, herd immunity and so on) as well as well as upsetting the unlikely gains he had made for his party in the north last year. 

The situation is also exacerbating fault lines between the constituent nations of the Union quite alarmingly. 

Localised lockdowns seemed like a more nuanced approach to the pandemic but they have inevitably thrown up the kind of entirely expected dilemmas politicians tend to refer to as unexpected. In some ways, Westminster gets the worst of all worlds out of this new patchwork, politically, economically and in terms of public health outcomes.