There’s a certain logical confusion on display here in The Observer. Not that that’s unusual of course. The first claim is that to be concerned with the economy above lives is a mark of libertarianism:

Understanding how this catastrophe occurred is of critical importance – for it cannot be allowed to happen again. Some may be tempted to conclude that our leaders took their eyes off the ball momentarily. It is not an argument that stands up to scrutiny, however. In fact, the causes of this month’s dramatic surge in Covid cases have their roots in policy decisions made by a government that has shown itself obsessed with libertarian issues since the start of the pandemic. This obsession led it to consistently play down Covid’s threat to our health while constantly highlighting its potential to cause economic harm.

Libertarianism - in common with the close cognates, neoliberalism and classical liberalism and you can use whichever of the three you desire to describe our position on most matters - does not prioritise “the economy” over any thing at all let alone peoples’ lives in a pandemic. It is, rather, a method, a manner of thinking about, how best to create, the better life as are all socioeconomic and political sets of ideas - communism, socialism, corporatism, fascism and whatever other precepts one might like to describe. They’re all of varying levels of effectiveness, desirability and horror but all do indeed ponder the same interactions of economy, life, health and so on.

Libertarianism places greater weight than most of those others upon liberty and freedom, certainly, but that’s not the same as “the economy”.

It’s the next part of the argument that is seriously awry:

It has hard to see any positives in this sad tale of government incompetence

Consider the claim. We’ve not had enough firm thwack of government because everyone’s been libertarian about stuff. We’ve also got the insistence that government is incompetent. Those two can’t both be true. If those who rule are incompetent then we’d do better with less of their intervention into life, not more. That firm direction of the nation’s effectiveness is predicated upon the competence of those hands upon the tiller. The insistence upon the absence of the competence is an argument, perhaps the argument, in favour of just running before the storm.

It’s not possible to believe both, both the incompetence and the more deployment of the incompetence. Well, not unless you’re writing for The Observer….