I recall the question being raised why big businesses have not fought back against being unable to operate. Is it the case that big businesses have advantages unavailable to smaller businesses? Do big businesses have bigger cash reserves and can get finance even not being allowed to operate. Can large chain stores sell enough through the internet to compensate for loss of in store sales. Does this explain why big businesses have not fought against lockdowns? Small businesses don’t have cash reserves and will have much greater difficulty obtaining financing.

Some have suggested the purpose of lockdowns is to destroy small and medium sized businesses so that big businesses have a monopoly. It could be argued another motive behind getting rid of small businesses is that successful small businesses give financial independence to people where they don’t have to claim benefits from the government or work for other people. Do you feel this view is valid? This view makes sense in some respects. For instance, if small shops selling things such as clothes, books etc go bust, the supermarkets and Amazon can take their trade. I recall an article mentioning Wetherspoons may take over closed pubs. If independant restaurants and cafes go bust, chain restaurants may get more trade. In other respects the theory doesn’t make sense because areas of the economy are dominated by small businesses with no big business competitors. For instance, barbers and hairdressers are run as small businesses with no big national chains to take their trade if large numbers go bust.