The Tribune

After so many months of endless debate and controversy, some may regard further comment about the COVID-19 pandemic to be superfluous. But what appears to be a second wave of the virus in Europe - resulting in imposition of new restrictions - has reignited argument about the efforts of governments to control its spread.

Here at home, even as the figures for infections continue to rise, there appears to be a partial return to something approaching normality, with - for example, among other signs -- no more queues at supermarkets and pharmacies. But some question the need to extend the emergency powers until the end of October and wonder what will happen after that.

Action taken to combat COVID-19 has varied, of course, by country. But, in studying developments in Britain, I found it interesting to do a trawl of the UK press about comments on the government’s restrictions and the curtailment of people’s lives.

It is clear levels of anxiety remain high as infections and hospital admissions have started to rise again and hopes of a return to normality in the autumn are fading. Everybody finally realises the pandemic is here to stay, at least until a vaccine is available and possibly after that as well. So, instead of government using coercion of the public to try to defeat or eradicate the virus, it has almost become a cliché that the only way of dealing with this scourge is to learn to live with it and adapt accordingly - in the same way human-beings have had to learn to live with other diseases that blight their lives.

Even though the state has a role to play, the majority of people accept that it cannot protect everybody from pathogens in the air. Thus, during the current crisis it is incumbent on individuals themselves to take precautions like social distancing and the wearing of masks to minimise the health risk.

That being the case, although the original lockdowns seemed to be the right approach to try to limit the spread of the virus at the beginning of the crisis, universal restrictions applied indiscriminately cannot be maintained ad infinitum because the social and economic costs are too high. Without using heavy-handed coercive measures, political leaders somehow have to apply imagination and inventiveness in helping to contain the spread while allowing individuals to exercise their instinct for self-preservation and to have the freedom to get on with their lives to enable the country to function properly.

There is now a widespread view that in Britain Prime Minister Boris Johnson is floundering in the face of conflicting advice. His principal scientific specialists - some of whom are accused of scaremongering - are recommending further tough restrictions while some of their colleagues are saying these are undesirable since they will only defer the problem.

Apparently his own Chancellor of the Exchequer has warned the financial impact of a second lockdown will have a catastrophic effect on the economy.

The mix of commentary is fascinating. At one extreme, Peter Hitchens, the well-known contrarian, bluntly says the government has had the power to smash up one’s business, make you stay at home, part you from your nearest and dearest at the end of their lives, destroy your wedding plans, wreck your education, ruin your holidays, take away your job and set the police on you for not wearing a mask.

What is more, ministers have been encouraging people to report their neighbours for not adhering to the rules and there is arrogant bullying by officialdom in enforcing lockdown measures. As Hitchens puts it so colourfully, Boris Johnson wants to burn down the house twice to get rid of a wasp’s nest then stand in the ruins and blame everybody else for what amounts to a ‘futile catastrophe’.

On the other hand, many say that in the greatest crisis faced by the nation in a generation it is foolhardy in the extreme to downplay the seriousness of what is happening. No responsible government could simply stand back in the face of the virus spiralling out of control and fail to react to the predictions of the scientists with measures to combat its spread. So Mr Johnson, who, of course, was himself struck down with a nasty bout of COVID-19, is on a hiding to nothing.

That said, the issue now is whether the new strategy of restrictive measures chosen by UK ministers in face of the so-called second wave - with a quarter of the British population now under some form of lockdown that threatens to propel them once more into financial ruin - is the right one in face of serious doubts about its need or effectiveness.

In a democracy, if the state curtails civil liberties, it has to provide convincing evidence that its action is necessary and works.

With the social and economic impact of further lockdown measures that are seen as draconian and hard to enforce, plus the prospect of months of uncertainty ahead with no end in sight, more and more people are questioning whether they can be justified when increasingly it looks as though the cure is worse than the disease.

Most people will surely say even one death from the virus is one too many. But, according to the World Health Organisation, the death rate from coronavirus is very low - between 0.5 and one percent of infected cases.

Critics are now pointing to the latest revealing statistics in the UK. Of the total average number of some 1,600 deaths daily that are attributable to all causes, fewer than about 40 are now due to the virus. Since March, around 300 people under the age of 45 have died of the disease and, of the some 52,500 virus deaths recorded by the Office of National Statistics, 89 percent have been over-65s.

So, it can be argued that universal restrictions ought not to be applied indiscriminately since the risk to younger people is relatively low.

Meanwhile, UK National Health Service figures show more than 95 percent of patients who die from coronavirus in hospital have an underlying health condition such as diabetes, heart disease or obesity - and records show that in recent months there have been more deaths from cancer, strokes, heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases which are not being diagnosed or treated properly because of the emphasis on the virus and people’s fear of going to hospitals.

Apart from the severe damage to the economy, with the huge loss of jobs and the national debt now at an all-time high of the equivalent of over $2.5 trillion, the sad fact is that as a result of the lockdowns there has been an increase in social ills - isolation, loneliness, hopelessness and worry, depression, mental health issues and suicide – that are now likely to become worse during the dark cold days of winter.

So, public attitudes seem to be hardening.

More and more see the issue as wider than the science which appears to be dictating the government’s strategy.

They consider the social dimension should be given more weight.

It is surely not a simple choice between saving lives and preserving the economy.

There are wider issues and the economy is life itself. If it seizes up, everything else fails - including treatment by the NHS of COVID sufferers - and the standard of living that we all take for granted will collapse.

Perhaps there are lessons for others in all this. The key for the future must surely be to encourage and, where necessary, enforce good hygiene and social distancing measures, develop more testing and tracing, compel those testing positive to self-isolate, protect the vulnerable and improve medical facilities. But shutting everything down in a misguided belief that the state can protect its citizens from all risk and misfortune is no longer a justifiable option.

A round of applause for Boris - he could do with one

In connection with my piece today about coronavirus, I was delighted to read Boris Johnson’s pre-recorded speech at the UN General Assembly on Saturday.

In his positive address, he called for the world to overcome divisions created by the virus and unite to defeat the pandemic. He set out an ambitious five-point plan – to establish a worldwide network to identify dangerous pathogens before they start; to develop manufacturing capacity for treatments and vaccines; to design a global pandemic early warning system to predict a coming health crisis; to agree global protocols ready for a future health emergency and to reduce the trade barriers which have impeded the coronavirus response.

He also announced significant new British investment in COVAX, the international COVID-19 vaccines procurement pool, with the UK contributing an initial $90 million to secure purchase rights for up to 27 million vaccine doses for its own population.

In addition, he reported the UK had committed some $650 million in aid funding to help the world’s poorest countries access a coronavirus vaccine while also pledging substantially increased funding to the World Health Organisation over the next four years – thus making the UK its third largest donor.

In response to Mr Johnson’s speech, I imagine many in different countries will applaud him and his colleagues for pushing such an ambitious and welcome agenda. Could it herald the beginning of a turnaround in the struggle against a virus that has turned the world upside down?