Would a short national lockdown actually work?
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer’s call for a short three-week “circuit breaker” lockdown is a shrewd political manoeuvre to put clear space between the government’s choices and the opposition stance. But would such a move actually work?
The government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) certainly believes so. In a bombshell publication just an hour after the prime minister’s speech on Monday, documents from a meeting on 21 September revealed the experts had wanted a a two-week “circuit break” at that point to stop the spread of
the virus. Such a move would have seen workplaces closed, pubs, restaurants and all but essential shops shuttered again and people effectively confined to their homes unable to mix. It would effectively be a national lockdown like we saw in March.
The impact of such a move would almost certainly curtail infection rates from Covid-19. If people can’t mix, touch and infect each other as easily then after around 10 days there would be a significant drop in people testing positive.
Then the numbers being admitted to hospital and intensive care would fall too after around 14 days.
But as with the national lockdown earlier in the year infection rates would not drop to zero. Key workers and essential travel would mean people continue to spread the disease. It would be diminished but not eliminated.
If things get out of hand as they did in March then a longer, deeper and more painful lockdown will be the only option
There is also the impact on the mental health of the nation in yet again locking down – this time during winter. Add to this the question of lockdown fatigue and whether enough people would abide by the rules.
Sage suggested a two-week break would set Covid-19 back by about 28 days. That would buy hospitals more valuable time but with such a short break it would at best be a short window as opposed to a significant gamechanger.
The government is not solely concerned with infection numbers. Plunging the economy into another, albeit shorter deep freeze, would have devastating consequences. Some businesses would never re-open.
At the end of the circuit break the problem would still be there and infections would start to rise again only the economy would be even weaker.
The government has opted to try and find a middle way; we are no longer following the science wholesale. If the new restrictions don’t work, and chief medical officer Chris Whitty was clear that he did not believe, on their own, they would, then we will see cases continue to spike.
And this is where the attractiveness of a circuit break comes in. SAGE argues the earlier you act the bigger the impact on the virus and potentially the shorter the intervention is needed for.
In trying to keep the economy going and keep people free to work, play and meet their friends and family the government may be allowing the virus to grow to such a degree that a circuit breaker will no longer cut it in a few more weeks.
If things get out of hand as they did in March then a longer, deeper and more painful lockdown will be the only option to save the NHS from being overrun.
At that stage a three-week circuit break as proposed by Sir Keir Starmer would look very much like a missed opportunity.