The effects of Covid-19(CV) and the protective measures the UK Government (UKGOV) and other Governments around the world are taking are producing comments and issues such as those raised by the following headlines quoted from the UK press.
“…nothing will ever be the same again”
“Britain will have to get more self-sufficient”
“A strategy to return to normal life again”
“Over 70’s are most vulnerable to virus but the young will pay its fearsome price”
Sherbhert’s recent commentaries (see https://sherbhert.com/covid-19-a-balancing-act-for-government-and-all-citizens-part-1/ and https://sherbhert.com/covid-19-a-balancing-act-for-government-and-all-citizens-part-2/ ) touched on a variety of issues from economic risks to the challenges of social distancing, and the need for a global coordinated response. Where is all this going? As always, nobody can accurately predict how things will turn out, but it is fairly certain that the consequences of this pandemic, whether positive or challenging, will be felt, for better or worse, for a considerable time.
RECURRING OUTBREAKS
Unless and until an effective vaccine is discovered and applied widely, it is reasonable to assume that CV infections will be a feature of life around the world even after local epidemics are brought under control for the time being. Hot weather may bring respite, but experts largely expect further phases of recurrence. This will be all the more so if, say, the Western developed world establishes some control, but CV is less effectively defeated in developing countries of for example Africa, or indeed vice versa. If international travel resumes, as it must, global spread will be a constant risk with outbursts a recurrent threat. It is possible that if in the UK, for example, millions of people will in this round have been infected, there will be some established immunity to reduce outbreak impact.
While outbreaks may occur, major lockdowns and their serious economic effects are simply not going to be practical or acceptable solutions after the current phase, especially as most people suffer few or mild symptoms. So, as outbreaks appear, identifying them quickly and being able to react to contain them thoroughly will be vital. Just as for this first phase of infection, it is for further phases that testing, tracing and isolating will be critical, as will an abundance of testing kits and equipment and analysis facilities, with trained personnel. To cope with the future outbreaks requires a strategy to be developed now to be in place when life returns to normal. Nor will it be an answer that the old and vulnerable must stay indoors for a year or years- a further philosophical shift in thinking may be needed on the balance of protecting aged life versus life going on.
THE SOLUTION CANNOT BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM
As described in earlier Sherbhert CV articles mentioned above, the current suppression strategy, including in the UK the UKGOV subsidy of individuals and businesses, is only a delaying strategy, and given its vast cost can only be implemented for a short time without a bankruptcy epidemic – considerably worse than a CV epidemic. Like Trump or not, his catchphrase “We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem” carries more than a grain of truth. There is an article in the Daily Telegraph of 25 March by Philip Johnston headlined “I hope we haven’t overreacted and wrecked my grandson’s future”, a valid hope and a situation to be avoided. If an economic depression results due to the approach to protect the NHS (which at this point most would say is the right one), there would likely be far greater damage, death and injury, actual, social and political, than CV will bring. This makes the strategy for dealing with recurrence even more significant.
It is of course not just UKGOV which is committing vast wealth to counter the employment and other damages inflicted by CV and remedies for it. Many nations, the U.S., France and Germany, are adopting similar strategies: the world is putting itself in debt to a huge degree, and even many orthodox economist types are contemplating that perhaps the risks of printing money are worth it or necessary to meet the problem. The money pit theoretically is bottomless for Governments, but in reality, the splurge of cash aid can last a very limited time.
In the Times of 25 March, Max Hastings bemoans his (older) generation as “privileged and selfish”, in effect accusing them of wrecking the economic future of their children. This castigation of older people is unfair, but exaggeration points to a fair conclusion: the next generation cannot be sacrificed to preserve the almost-over lives of those who have had their time. Is the world at that moment? Perhaps not yet, but it must not blindly go there through not talking about the thorny issue of preventing death at all costs. See paragraph “DEATH IS ALLOWED-THE BIG ISSUE” below.
WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IS IRRELEVANT
There is an emerging band of commentators, some experts, demonstrating their wisdom of hindsight as to what should have been done and when. Some will have another agenda, perhaps political. But of course, these benefit of hindsight remedies being promulgated cannot ever be tested – nobody know what would have happened had they been adopted. There may be lessons to be learnt for the future reactivity to viral emergencies, including being prepared, but it is to be hoped that nations, media and those who love to propound their kitchen wisdom will not create a pursuit of navel gazing, perhaps point scoring, looking back in order to find scapegoats to blame for where the UK, and the wider world, lands. Recrimination is unhelpful and a waste of energy in such a circumstance.
There is little point too in spending excess effort blaming the Chinese governing regime for its original negligent approach to the virus when it first appeared, or any suppression by it of the facts. Rather, it would be better to impress upon the rulers of China and elsewhere the need in future for openness in confronting potentially global natural threats when they arise. It is to be hoped that the Chinese Government will be among the learners from this crisis, as they are for sure not the heroes.
THE LIMITATIONS ON RAPID RESPONSE EXPOSED – GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY
In normal life, the flow of goods and services and sharing between nations is unseen and simply assumed. The system works except when a CV pandemic exposes the threads by which it hangs. The softness of just in time supply chains is a Brexit topic. But the consequences of the CV pandemic have highlighted so much more. When ventilators by the thousands are needed by all countries, test kits by the millions are needed short and longer term, plus protection equipment, all countries are competing with each other to get enough, and the UK is woefully dependent on imports which can be closed off instantly. In times of national emergency, each nation looks after itself. Perhaps increased protectionism will be a lasting legacy – or perhaps the conclusion could be the opposite, that nations must collaborate to combat global issues, though the first is regrettably more likely.
If anyone thought otherwise before CV, it is clear that global institutions wield little authority: the potential of the UN has never been realised as it has no real force in the face of serious national powers going their own way. So too the World Health Organisation. It would be nice to think that post pandemic globally influential bodies can be revitalised but that is unlikely. The leaders of the UN, the leaders of Africa, such as Abiy Ahmed, PM of Ethiopia, plead for a collaborative global response, with rich nations helping poorer. But even the G20 was totally silent until 26th March when they announced they would do what it takes to fight the virus, “committing” $5 trillion, with no detail. The seriousness with which this soundbite is treated is reflected in the fact that it was barely mentioned in the press the next day.
Today, the UK’s dependence on the import of essential goods is laid bare: for drugs, medical equipment, certain foods, and various parts for manufacturing or assembly. The nations within the EU fare no better as the “Union” fragments into closed borders, and countries being isolated in lockdowns. It would be a mistake perhaps to think that the UK should now reverse its global attitude and seek to be independent totally for critical supplies. Rather, it could be wise to consider where there may be gaps of zero or close to zero capability which may need a little or substantial infill. Also, whether our systems should be made more resilient in the face of isolating events like the CV pandemic. Perhaps there should be greater stockpiles of essentials such as key drugs (antibiotics?), testing kits, and whatever more strategic thinkers than Sherbhert consider wise.
In addition, harking back to another favourite Sherbhert theme, – the critical importance of British farming and food production (see https://sherbhert.com/uk-food-supply-farming-is-essential/ ), the level of UK self- sufficiency in food and its production is worth UKGOV strategic analysis, remembering too that locally sourced food is more sustainable, fresher, better and more climate change friendly than imports. The spotlight falls on local production as shelves empty, though not through a general shortage, but sadly fear or greed. The field to fork supply chain, as with all chains, relies on the successful coordination of numerous activities and participants – planting, picking, milking, lambing, harvesting, preparing meat, packing, distributing and so on. Where food must be hand-picked, this is a ready time for people, side-lined for work by CV and social distancing, as well as students, to become paid volunteers to pick fruit and vegetables. As events have transpired, pickers from Eastern Europe, even without Brexit, would have been unavailable due to CV. This is a real and present chance for collaboration for the benefit of all.
But long term a strategy of nurture of UK farming and fishing and increase of UK food production and establishing a well-tuned structure to support it to succeed, perhaps should be high on UKGOV’s agenda.
IS DEATH ALLOWED ? – A HIGHLY EMOTIVE ISSUE
The most vulnerable sector of society, it is common ground, is the over 70s and others with a serious underlying health condition. Certain experts (such as Neil Ferguson of Imperial College as reported on 26 March) are clear that many who sadly die from CV would have died in any event now or in the near future. So much of today’s protections are designed to protect this group, and /or the NHS. The most effective remedy is for this group to live in isolation: harsh and hard but true. Protecting them cannot be allowed to break living standards and create social turmoil. Max Hastings observes “The great principle upon which mankind has functioned since the beginning of time is that each generation, as it attains senility, should pass the baton to the next, if possible, with good grace”. One may or may not agree, but at least most would, broadly, share the sentiment.
Perhaps the UK and the rest of the Western world should look at its obsession with longevity and keeping everyone alive for as long as possible, no matter what the quality of life. Perhaps it is a mistaken idol, as death is but a matter of timing. The subject dovetails with the fundamental social care debate waiting to be resolved, and even topics such as euthanasia and assisted suicide are not unrelated. There is a price which, if it destroys the future for so many going forward, is simply not worth paying in order to halt nature’s course. This is a big topic for another day though it lies beneath and permeates the whole strategy of defeating the pandemic and CV in the future- at least until a vaccine appears.
