Sir Michael Marmot is becoming a one hit wonder

Michael Marmot is here again to tell us all that it’s the rise in inequality which has caused the coronavirus deaths in the UK. There are a number of problems with his diagnosis:

The political mood of the decade from 2010 was one of the rolling back of the state, and a continuation of an apparent consensus that things were best left to the market. At times, this aversion to government action was made worse by a suspicion of expertise.

This rolling back of the state was seen clearly in a reduction in public spending from 42% of GDP in 2009-10 to 35% in 2018-19.

That’s actually so misleading as to be tantamount to casuistry. The rolling back of the state? Tax as a percentage of GDP was higher, at 33.5%, in 2018 than it was in 2007 - 33%. Public spending as a percentage of GDP was 40% in 2018 as against 39.6% in 2007. We are at least starting from before the Crash to after it, while Marmot is - deliberately we fear - starting from the Crash induced Keynesian expansion of public spending as a percentage of GDP. Largely driven by GDP falling, the entire place becoming poorer.

Oh, and inequality, measured by the Gini, is lower today (and in 2018) than in 2007. There hasn’t been a shrinkage in government as a portion of everything, there hasn’t been a rise in inequality. Which does rather leave the idea that we’re all dying like flies as a result of a reduction in government and an increase in inequality rather lacking empirical support.

Of course, it’s possible to put forward all sorts of ideas as to why the Covid-19 death rate is worse here. Possible ideas are the inadequacy of the government provided health care system. Or, possibly relevant to a disease known to be spread via droplets, the fact that Britain’s insane planning permission system leads to the smallest new houses in Europe. But those are mere ideas, we’d not try to insist upon either of them without actual evidence in favour of them - and a useful lack of evidence contradicting them.

But then we’re not professors of epidemiology so perhaps this insistence upon evidence isn’t quite the way to do it?