Lockdown was introduced to save lives... Tory austerity had nothing to do with it

Yesterday morning, as Northern Ireland began a fourth day without a death from Covid-19 and with the Executive speeding up the process of easing lockdown restrictions, Finance Minister Conor Murphy claimed on the BBC’S Good Morning Ulster that had the NHS been properly funded, lockdown would not have been necessary.

Later in the day, after a deluge of criticism, Murphy tweeted: “Austerity policies have severely impacted on the capacity of health and social care services, here and elsewhere, to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic. For clarity, lockdown has been absolutely necessary to save lives.”

It is not the first time Murphy has gone off on a solo run, but the oddest thing about this one was the timing. Why the need to deflect from good news and Executive solidarity? Why the need to focus on “Tory austerity”? Why the argument that lockdown could have been avoided when so many other countries opted for it and when it has worked well on both sides of the border?

When the lockdown was introduced, there were practically no certainties about Covid-19, particularly about how it spread, how quickly it spread, who was the most vulnerable, how long it would stay in your system, what short and long-term damage it could do and if those who contracted it would be immune afterwards.

So, even if the NHS had been so well-funded and staffed that there was no fear of it being overwhelmed in the first few months — although there would still have been enormous challenges had the original numbers infected been huge and required hospitalisation — we would still not have known the answers to the original uncertainties. That is why lockdown was introduced in most countries, including New Zealand.

Indeed, lockdown was probably essential. Even Sweden, which did not introduce a full-blown lockdown, placed restrictions and enormous personal responsibility on its citizens. Because the one certainty we did have was that, like all viruses, Covid-19 spread from person to person, so it made sense to stop people meeting each other, particularly at close quarters.

Lockdown restrictions were eased as more evidence provided more answers to the key questions, allowing governments and businesses to prepare for greater personal contact again.

Interestingly, at no point in the last three months has Sinn

Fein raised any nuance or caveat about its continuing support for lockdown, which probably explains why a man who does not usually do retractions or clarifications had to do so yesterday afternoon.

As Finance Minster, he knows that the NHS does not have the level of funding it needs and will need for the level of service and expertise it is expected to provide.

He knows too that the Executive, irrespective of which party has had the health or finance portfolios, has failed to properly address the funding crisis.

So, it might have been more useful had he addressed a long-term unresolved problem, rather than take a pointless, mean-spirited, inaccurate swipe at the very moment when the Executive is broadly acknowledged — a rare thing in itself — to have done a good job.

In the next few months he will have to make difficult decisions about cutbacks, stalled projects, higher rates, departmental funding and the continuing financial fallout from the Covid-19 crisis.

Money will be tight. Hundreds of thousands of people will be affected by his decisions and will not be happy. But he must avoid the temptation to seek refuge in the default response that his problem, our problem, can just be pinned on the Tories and austerity.

The price of voluntarily returning to the Executive after three years is that you must be prepared to take your own tough decisions and find solutions, rather than just pointing the finger and allocating blame.