Boris Johnson is to hold a daily press conference on coronavirus. If ever an accident was waiting to happen, this is it. Downing Street hopes to put a stop to days of scientists and ministers falling out over how the crisis should be handled. Good luck with that.
No one knows for sure how to predict the unprecedented – or how to handle it. Initially there was a sense, certainly among the doctors to whom I have spoken,that Britain’s position at the non-hysterical end of the spectrum was correct. The chief medical officer for England, Chris Whitty, took the view that the illness, though highly contagious, was most dangerous for those with a vulnerable immune system. The death rate was almost exclusive to this mostly elderly group. There was no immediate reason to upheave hospitals, close schools, ban social activities or plunge the economy into recession. There were reasons only for contingencies.
As the virus expanded and other governments reacted differently, this stance was challenged. But Whitty had accepted that, if circumstances altered, policy would shift from “contain to delay”. This was undermined as global hysteria rose to a peak. Other countries were reacting as had China and South Korea, and progressed to “lockdown”. England’s chief scientific officer, Sir Patrick Vallance, unwisely mentioned the technical term “herd immunity”, implying that Britain would over time develop resistance to coronavirus. That allowed Johnson to appear casual about “[losing] loved ones”.
Leaks began of arguments within Whitehall. Ever more alarming forecasts of death and disaster emerged from the bureaucratic woodwork. The health secretary, Matt Hancock, oddly wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph followed by what seemed not a shift to a new response phase but a volte-face.
Emergency powers are now to be taken. Those over 70 years old will be confined to quarters, possibly for months on end. Gatherings of more than 500 people may be banned. Land will be compulsorily acquired for mass burials. Hancock drew comparisons with the wartime blitz, with bombs “pounding every night, with rationing and loss of life”.
The contrast of such language with Whitty’s caution was stark, though Hancock accepted that decisions were “not yet taken”. So why mention them, especially when he had not reversed the odd decision not to provide public testing for the virus? The answer can only be the political instinct to hype a crisis. Now Johnson is to do likewise, with a daily attempt to calm nerves – or capture attention, according to taste.
Either way, the trumpet is sounding an uncertain note. At such times, confidence wobbles. That is precisely why it is customary during wars for public information to be confined to official channels – as during the Falklands war. Politicians are advised to wait on victory or defeat. When all eyes are rightly concentrated on the judgment of professionals, it is best they stay there.
To channel this expertise through a prime minister, and one notoriously reckless with publicity, is not a good idea. It also implies the worst-case scenario. Leave speaking to the experts. This is their job. This illness deserves a targeted, measured response. The last thing it needs is politics.
• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
