Decisions which will be judged by history

Not since 1940 – and not even then – has a prime minister addressed the nation with such a grave announcement. Eighty years ago, Churchill galvanised the nation into a common effort against a visible foe. Boris Johnson last night ordered the country to stay indoors to defeat an invisible one. Mr Johnson, who has been resisting such a draconian set of measures, found himself in an impossible position. A rapid surge in coronavirus cases and deaths is now unavoidable and without being seen to take action such as this the Government would be blamed for them.

At least, unlike in some countries, the parks will stay open, even if points where people tend to congregate will be closed off. People will still be able to get out for some exercise, but if too many gather together the police will have the power to break them up and hand out fines on the spot. For weddings to be banned and all places of worship shut at a time when spiritual guidance is needed more than ever is deeply depressing.

The additional powers taken by the Government to reduce activity and interaction among people are a response to a weekend which saw thousands of people flocking to public spaces despite advice to keep apart.

Government advisers say that unless 75 per cent or more of the country abides by the requirements to distance themselves physically from others, the NHS will be overwhelmed.

This was not happening, hence the most authoritarian set of measures ever introduced in peacetime.

Indeed, not even during the war were people forbidden to go out with more than one other person unless they are part of their own immediate family.

Were the people who went out over the weekend really “selfish” as Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary said? Is it “madness” for people who have to go to work to be crammed onto Tube carriages when Transport for London has arbitrarily reduced the number of trains, thereby ensuring those that remain are busier than they would otherwise be?

The same goes for the buses. Why not run more of them, rather than fewer?

The weekend decision to shield 1.5 million of the most vulnerable individuals by insisting they isolate for 12 weeks makes sense, even if it is a dreadful imposition on that group. They are most likely to be hardest hit by coronavirus and require the intensive care treatment that the NHS is not able to provide on the anticipated scale.

But to ask everyone to make these sacrifices requires something from the state by way of reciprocation. People need to have an idea of when this will end.

Mr Johnson said the restrictions would be reviewed in three weeks and he exhibited a welcome and characteristic optimism about seeing a way through amid the gloom. It is essential to keep hopes up because the alternative is despair.

People also need greater clarity about tests. The Prime Minister said millions of kits were on their way, but when and how will they be used? Why aren’t medical staff being tested? Where are the new ventilators? What is the progress with finding a cure?

We know that ministers and officials are pulling out all the stops to get this done and thank them for it. We know that this is an unprecedentedly difficult time and we ask questions because it is our job to do so, not just to take it as given that this is the right approach.

No responsible government can take decisions today in isolation from their long-term consequences, not just for our economic wellbeing but for our social cohesion and hard-won liberties. How will history judge this black day?