Britain’s coronavirus exit strategy must ensure that lockdown isn’t repeated

The prime minister is preparing to lay out his step by step strategy for phase two of the lockdown and has indicated that there will be a gradual lifting of the restrictions over time. The easing of measures will be closely monitored one at a time until the government’s expert advisers recommend more changes can be made.

The government is also set to drop its “stay at home” message, but it’s not going to be easy to move from terrifying the nation into hiding in their homes to coaxing them into being more economically and socially active.

An Ipsos Mori opinion poll this week showed the extent of the public’s concerns. Two thirds of residents wouldn’t feel comfortable going to bars or restaurants or using public transport even if they were allowed. Over a third are not keen to send their children back to school and just under a third don’t want to go back to work. Fear of an existential threat cannot simply be discarded overnight.

Might it have been wiser to have a more honest and sensible discussion with the public about how we balance the risks of Covid-19 against our quality of life and the economic health of the country? It was always clear that we would have to resume normal social and economic activity before a vaccine or better treatment was available. Eventually we must move towards a policy of mitigation and risk assessment because the coronavirus is a long-term challenge and government policy must be sustainable.

Professor Neil Ferguson felt able to justify his lover because of his common sense assessment of the risk, so people may justifiably ask why they can’t also use their judgement and make grown up trade-offs and risk assessments. This will be necessary over the long term because formal social distancing will break down before the medical breakthrough that renders the virus low risk finally comes.

We can’t be locked down indefinitely nor can we continually shut the country down as cases peak, not without devastating the health and wellbeing of the nation. Concerns about the economy are not callous. Civilisation depends on economic health and the consequences of a major downturn or prolonged depression are devastating for society. Currently the Bank of England forecasts unemployment to double and the economy to shrink by at least 14%.

As we speak serious lasting damage is being done to the country’s future prosperity as businesses large and small are strangled to death. The global economy is flashing red and the eurozone faces its worst recession ever. Our government is racking up gigantic debts to that will affect our children and grandchildren.

That’s why the Chancellor is considering cutting taxpayer support for millions of furloughed workers. Yet withdrawing support for people who are not working because the government forced them not to is ludicrous. The Times reported that the Treasury is concerned that the nation has become “addicted” to the support, but are we not all addicted to paying our rent and bills? I’m a junkie when it comes to preventing myself falling into destitution.

It would be wiser to prioritise allowing people to return to their jobs and businesses they never wanted to leave in the first place. In many cases people will have no jobs to return to as the pandemic and its consequences reshape the economy. There’s no doubt that the longer the economy is closed the worse the scarring will be and slower and more painful the recovery.

Meanwhile, the physical and mental health of millions is deteriorating. It has caused the loss of so many livelihoods. People are living in isolation. Lonely, fearful and uncertain. People will sink into depression and others will be driven to suicide.

As we speak there are women suffering under abusive partners who feel more trapped than ever. There are children living with abusers in isolation who will be begin tormented. There are people who will never fully recover from what is happening to them right now. Netflix isn’t alleviating the lockdown for them.

Now we know the plan for exiting this dismal dystopia is imminent, when will we hear when the government will surrender the powers that enabled it to impose and maintain the lockdown?

There is a risk of permanently, and adversely, altering the relationship between the people and the state. What are the consequences for liberal societies if we live under the permanent threat of house arrest and being harangued by the police for ordinarily normal and harmless behaviour?

As Lord Jonathan Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court and Reith Lecturer, said: “Governments armed with vast powers are usually reluctant to part with them.” This is a clear lesson of history, with terrorism legislation being the most obvious recent example. Draconian laws were used for all kinds of inappropriate purposes way beyond the intended remit, from council spying to persecuting protestors.

Currently behaviour that would ordinarily be considered completely normal is criminal. Regulations that removed our freedom of movement, assembly and worship were implemented without any parliamentary scrutiny and approval from MP’s. The government now has vast powers of surveillance of which much of the public remains largely unaware.

There is a public health emergency, but that doesn’t mean the government can do as it wishes. Much less significant executive power grabs have received more robust opposition in the Commons and in the courts. Some of the legislation is vague and open to abuse and interpretation (there are many cases of Ministers and the police misunderstanding the rules). Emergencies can be abused by governments we need reassurance now that this will not happen.

When the inevitable inquiry takes place to question why the death toll in the UK is so high, and why our preparation and response has been seemingly so inadequate, it must thoroughly and honestly examine the effectiveness of the lockdown alongside its wide-ranging negative medium to long term consequences.

Preparations for the next pandemic must begin as soon as possible and it’s crucial to minimise the length and extent of any lockdown. Leading public health experts have been warning of a global pandemic for decades, we have been lucky to avoid one for so long and can’t be sure when it will happen again.

If we had a similar outbreak in two years, and then five years after that, could we really afford to shut down the economy again? I would suggest not, at least not without an eventual political backlash. Theories that the global economic crash and subsequent recession led to European populism, Brexit and Trump are now widely accepted so we must surely be wary of what destroying the economy to mitigate a pandemic could lead to.

South Korea contained a larger scale outbreak with large scale testing and tracing of the contacts of infected people. The extent of the nation’s testing abilities has allowed infected people to self-isolate quickly, enabled widespread contact tracing and ensured it avoided a lockdown. Testing is free for those suspected of having the virus and they even had drive through facilities to make the process quick and simple.

The UK was not equipped to respond in the same way. There needs to be a complete review of Britain’s health infrastructure so that we can respond rapidly next time as well as serious and ongoing investment in personal protection equipment and emergency bed capacity.

We cannot be caught out again. Planning must begin as soon as this crisis is over so that next time, we can save more lives, contain the outbreak and avoid the misery of a total economic and societal lockdown. I have a feeling that over the coming years, as the long-term effects become more apparent, more and more people will agree with me.