No clarity on leaving lockdown

On Sunday, I watched the Prime Minister deliver his pre-recorded remarks regarding the government’s plans for leaving lockdown.

I was stunned when he suggested that people go to work “if they have to”. I wondered what the specific definition of “if they have to” is: certainly, a construction worker needs to be on site to work. But who else? A call centre operator? An IT support person? Was 12 hours enough notice for both employees and their firms?

The result was confusion. This past Monday, I saw a video of Canning Town station: it showed large numbers of people crowding into the Tube. It’s simply not possible to maintain social distancing in these circumstances.

Assume one person at least had the coronavirus. Assume that the virus is still as virulent as it ever was: what will be the result?

It has become fashionable in some circles to suggest that the virus is only fatal in 1% of cases. Let’s assume that only a third of the UK population contracts it. Let’s also assume that 1% of people die from it. That is still a staggering number, in excess of 200,000 people.

This is approaching the casualties that would be inflicted by a major war. We have already gotten to numbers not seen since the London Blitz. It is horrifying to think that there are people who fought for this country, survived to see VE Day, and yet are falling prey to this virus, dying in homes intended for them to spend their twilight years in care and enjoyment.

Words matter. Clarity matters. Timing matters. Life and death hinge upon them. I am not impressed by the “Stay Alert” message, as it has been twisted into meanings that no person would obviously derive. For example, part of the advice is “Stay alert by staying home whenever possible”. One could say, simply, “stay home”. There was no need for a change: “stay home” worked.

Also, a vague statement like “go to work if you have to” helps nothing. Spain, for example, made it clear that those who should go back to work are in specific sectors, specifically, construction and manufacturing. To be fair to the Prime Minister, he clarified this somewhat the following day. He then also suggested that people should contact their employer. It would have been better if he had said this in his initial statement; perhaps then we would have avoided the scenes at Canning Town.

We are also by no means ready in terms of PPE: when Spain opened up, the authorities made a point of handing out masks to commuters at railway stations. We are being advised to make our own. We are a “make do and mend” nation but not everyone has a sewing machine. The efficacy of homemade PPE is yet to be established. Certainly, it would not do in a hospital: not long ago, I heard of some nurses who utilised homemade gowns made from bin liners. They contracted the virus.

There is a natural limit to the politics of muddle and improvisation. Jokes can only take you so far. When the laughter dies, and matters turn grave, there must be serious policies and organisation which will enable us to tackle the challenges before us. I hope that the Prime Minister learns from the mistakes he has made; I fear the ones already committed may mean that leaving lockdown will remain solely an aspiration for some time to come.