As Covid-19 has spread, to more than 70 countries already, people are learning not only about the new coronavirus, but about their governments’ ability to respond to it. In many countries, from China to South Korea and Iran, anger at the shortcomings is widely held and deeply felt. With a low but fast-growing tally of 51 cases in the UK, the British government, none too soon, has published its action plan.
This is a government that believes in providing opportunities rather than a safety net; it seems reluctant to employ the powers of the state to shield or protect. Nor does it want to take the blame for problems. One might have been forgiven for thinking that Boris Johnson had self-isolated, given how little we have seen of him recently. The public has already taken matters into its own hands, with consumers stockpiling canned goods and hand sanitiser. But this is not the kind of situation that can be managed without the state, and Mr Johnson, too, can see the political perils of simply disappearing from the scene.
The Cobra emergency meeting, and Tuesday’s briefing on the measures that could be taken, were welcome. Strikingly, the prime minister was flanked by the chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser as he spoke. On the same morning, Mark Carney, the Bank of England’s governor, said it would take all steps needed to support the economy and financial system from what he described as a large, but temporary, shock.
The public does not always believe politicians, and Mr Johnson has done too much to fuel that cynicism. Experts and institutions have their uses. The proposals, based on longstanding pandemic planning, appear to be largely measured and proportionate. In the first phase, the aim is to contain the disease, not least to buy time to improve preparedness – critical, given warnings that the NHS is not yet ready for the crisis; in the second, it is to delay its spread; in the last, it is to mitigate its impact. Research into the virus, potential treatments and vaccines will run alongside.
The government has stressed that while many people may fall ill, a very low proportion will die. At the same time, it notes that up to four-fifths of the population could be infected, with a fifth of the workforce taken ill at any one time, and that an outbreak could last for months. In the extreme scenario, former medical staff could be brought out of retirement, and police and fire services might attend only the most serious incidents. The army could be called in if civilian authorities could not cope, and schools might close.
The need to control the disease must be balanced against the resulting social and economic disruption, and overreacting at this stage could mean people tire too quickly of measures and abandon them when they are most needed. At the same time, the wisdom of allowing large-scale gatherings with tens of thousands of participants to go ahead – while others have banned events with more than a few thousand – must remain in question. The childishness that led to the government boycotting the BBC’s Today programme, even when the need to keep the public well informed is paramount, has thankfully been shelved for now; Matt Hancock, the health secretary, appeared to discuss the government plans.
Much more still needs to be done. The British Medical Association has called for the urgent distribution of personal protective equipment such as masks to GP surgeries. Other issues show the repercussions of Conservative policies over the last decade. Urgent measures are needed to help workers in the gig economy, who face a choice between going to work while possibly sick or waiting up to five weeks to obtain universal credit. And austerity has seen dramatic cuts in some of the very sectors now needed to carry out these plans: the number of health visitors, district and school nurses and local council staff have all fallen sharply. These are not the kinds of issues this government wants to address. But the UK’s ability to withstand this crisis, and future challenges, may depend on its willingness to do so.
