Time for Covid-O to opt for a more liberal quarantine
When the Cabinet subcommittee code-named “Covid-O” meets this week to consider updating the UK quarantine arrangements for international travel its members should keep in mind the Italian proverb Il meglio è l’inimico del bene; the best is the enemy of the good. The committee is chaired by Michael Gove, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but the “O” in the title should not be mistaken for a zero. Its proper name is the subcommittee for Covid-19 operations and its role is to formulate and advise the Prime Minister on coronavirus policy.
It was this committee that put in place the existing policy whereby all those returning from countries deemed high-risk (broadly defined as those in which the average seven-day incidence of infection is greater than 20 per 100,000 of the population) must quarantine for 14 days on their arrival in Britain. Importantly, the rules of quarantine prevent socially distanced exercise, food shopping or even dog walking. Infringement risks, not “a Cummings”, but a £1,000 fine.
Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, on Friday described the policy as “clunky” and acknowledged that it had caused all sorts of trouble over the past few weeks, most notably the single largest evacuation from France since Dunkirk.
Given just 30 hours notice of the air bridge being closed, tens of thousands abandoned their holidays and squeezed on to planes, trains and not-so-small boats to avoid the Aug 15 deadline.
Epidemiologists will no doubt have alighted on what may yet prove to be one of the largest natural experiments in Covid super-spreading. Expect their findings to emerge in learned journals over the next months.
That measures are needed to prevent the import of the virus from overseas there can be no doubt. The virus was originally seeded in the UK from hotspots in Europe in February and March. And until it is defeated globally, Britain, a major travel hub, will remain vulnerable.
Covid-O, whose members include
Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, is understood to be considering three options on the quarantine arrangements: maintenance of the current policy; a single test on arrival; or a double test, one on or before arrival and a second after five to eight days.
Deliberations will be informed by a paper from the Government’s Sage scientific advisory group for emergencies released earlier this month. It modelled the chances of a double test picking up those arrivals carrying the virus, a tiny proportion of the total.
It found that the chances of success grew with the time between tests. A single test on arrival would detect just 7 per cent of positive cases, while a second test five or eight days after arrival would increase this to 85 per cent and 96 per cent respectively. Unfortunately, this still results in a quarantine of seven to 10 days once test delays are factored in.
Mr Sunak will hopefully be lobbying for a more liberal regime than these numbers suggest. Germany, France and other economic competitors have been testing arrivals from high-risk countries for some time and, although there are regional variations, you are generally free to go about your business if and when a negative result is confirmed.
Iceland has just introduced a five-day double test regime, but it does not apply to minors and its quarantine regime is more liberal, allowing for socially distanced exercise.
My guess is that the German regime – a single test within 48 hours of arrival – is fine and the Icelandic one workable. Both appear to have built into them an appreciation of human behaviour in the sense they are much more likely to be complied with than our own.
Priti Patel, the Home Secretary,, claimed in July that compliance with the UK 14-day quarantine rule was “99.9 per cent” but the study she drew on merely asked people if they were sticking to the rules (want a £1,000 fine?) and she has a poor reputation when it comes to numbers.
Ms Patel herself described the findings as neither good nor perfect but “incredible”.