A sense of proportion

SIR – It is beholden on all of us, not least those in public life, to give maximum support to the measures deemed necessary by medical and scientific advice to combat Covid-19.

But it is also necessary for those of us with experience of dealing with other forms of threat, and therefore risk to the life and well-being of our country, to make a contribution to the debate on the proportionality and balance needed to ensure continuity of basic services and the foundation of our economy.

It is in that spirit, and having dealt with the counter-terrorism measures required when I was home secretary from 2001, that I hope sincerely that the Government will not be pushed on a daily basis to feel that it has to do “something new” and “something more” in addition to the measures already announced.

It may, in due course, be necessary to activate those measures in the emergency legislation passing through Parliament in the coming days that do not deal with medical, welfare or employment matters.

Nevertheless, at this moment in time, it is my judgment that there is a real danger, particularly with talk of a “total lockdown” of London, that panic will become a serious threat, undermining the proportionate measures necessary to contain the virus while sustaining the wellbeing of our country.

The Government’s Scientific Advisory Group (Sage) has an incredibly difficult job which I do not underestimate. Testing its modelling and expanding the expertise drawn into the group must surely be prudent in avoiding apocalyptic scenarios which then lead to actions that might prove to be as damaging to life and wellbeing as less draconian alternatives. Lord Blunkett (Lab) London SW1

SIR – The Prime Minister’s announcement that whole families should isolate themselves for 14 days if one member has coronavirus symptoms has resulted in the emptying of supermarket shelves.

This has been blamed on the evils of stockpiling and panic-buying, but people can hardly be criticised for trying to make sure that there are enough provisions in the house to last for two or three weeks, in case of illness.

This response could and should have been predicted in Whitehall. It is resulting in a considerable increase in social mixing, with people having to visit multiple stores on multiple days in search of basic commodities.

All this fear and distress might well turn out to have been for nothing. The projected mortalities are based on a number of questionable assumptions, as has been succinctly pointed out by the Stanford University epidemiologist Professor John Ioannidis.

We cannot afford to ignore the evidence provided by the cruise ship Diamond Princess, on board which 700 passengers (mostly elderly) and crew were infected, with a mortality of 1 per cent. This might appear high, but our Government is currently basing its actions on a much higher projected death rate in the over-70 age group.

If, over the next few weeks, Italy is shown to be coming to the end of its own epidemic, we need to be cautious in assuming this to have been a benefit of social isolation, which likely came too late to have much impact.

If such a decline is indeed observed we should seriously consider rolling back with alacrity some of the more draconian measures, which risk destroying not only our economy but also the very fabric of our society. Dr Paul A Fox London W6