In the war on Covid – 19 (CV), the UK Government (UKGOV) is using the best advice and its best judgment in setting the strategy and guidelines to protect life and to bring the virus under some control. It is vital that, as in any war, the citizens adopt a unified approach and each person plays their part to implement the strategy, and that the unity is not undermined.
NO KNOWN ANSWER
It is common ground that nobody knows the certain way to control and defeat the virus short term or long term. There is considerable concern that even if CV appears to be losing its virulence and the current wave of infections to be dying, it could come back with a second wave or simply be around for the long term. A cure or vaccine cannot in the short term be expected and so the battle is fought much on a trial and error basis. Each country is having to deal with CV as it arises and spreads at different rates and in their respective different circumstances having regard not just to scientific knowledge available to it, but also accounting for its economic state, its culture, its weather, its healthcare system, its local politics and stability, among other things. Therefore, the approach for each country and measures it takes and their timing will be dealt with case by case with no one size fits all.
It will however be essential that countries cooperate with and help each other, learning from experiences and applying learning to their own situation. At the moment, there is little obvious sign of that more international approach as each society looks to its own borders and interests. Even in the EU, there is a sense of Italy, the worst hit so far, being left to its own devices, and the supposedly open borders closing fast.
UK GOVERNMENT APPROACH
First, the UK is not China. Many, including the World Health Organisation, point to the Chinese approach to getting control and restraining CV. However, there must be some scepticism about what the true state of affairs in China is, as always, given that “facts” are controlled by State agencies and driven by the totalitarian State regime. If the virus is truly receding, that is good news; whether or not it will re-emerge is unpredictable. But in China the freedom of the individual and speech is subject to the will of the State which can impose whatever measures it likes, command people to act as it dictates and impose instant, and if it chooses severe, penalties for non-observance of the dictat. So, people comply. Also, the Asian mentality, compared to the Western, is entirely different (without implying it is better or worse). Some suggest that the WHO is also slow to find any fault with its major benefactors, China and the U.S.
For any UK strategy and detailed measures to succeed, assuming maintenance of UK values, in reality consensus must rule over coercion; the draconian must be balanced against disruption; the exercise of power must be explicable, fair and consistent.
The UKGOV, it is fortunate, has executive power through a large elected majority, and is not close to any political election, unlike some other States. UKGOV has laid out a clearly explained approach, with clear (and very importantly easy to understand) guidelines and behaviours for citizens to follow, and the reasons for them. It has based its judgements on medical and scientific advice and analysis provided by experts and senior experts are closely involved in delivery of the strategy and communications. Matt Hancock (Health Secretary) on 15th March declared that the UKGOV aim is to protect life, by protecting the vulnerable and protecting the NHS.
The plan is to flatten the peak of the CV epidemic over a period of months and not sharp shocks over a shorter period, driven by the judgement that this is a scenario where the NHS may be best able to cope. The behaviours it is advising now and restrictions it is adopting now are for now. The UKGOV recognises the situation is dynamic, and its recommendations and decisions must adapt to moving circumstances, perhaps nimbly and perhaps even recognising if an error has been made. It would arguably be politically safer to adopt dramatic and draconian restrictive policies straight away, but that was not the expert advice. Imagine the outcry if the UKGOV chose not to follow that advice! In addition, through its aggressive Budget just announced, it recognises that all sections of society, especially the vulnerable and the services providers, but also businesses, need support and it is pledging financial support to a level at the time unique in the developed world.
The strategy and actions must be set in the context of what is possible. In this case the strength of the NHS is critical. But the NHS is not equipped, with all the normal pressures on it, to manage the potential worst-case scenarios. Of course, it does not have enough beds, staff (especially as some will get ill) or ventilators or Intensive Care Units to deal with the level of hospitalisation, particularly of the weaker in society, that the CV at its potentially worst stages could throw at it. No developed country has a healthcare service capable of so dealing, as Italy is demonstrating, and nor should they be expected to. No service is geared up permanently to deal with the extremist extreme, just as no country lives on a permanent war footing. However, to supplement existing resources, imaginative use of other resources, such as hotels to provide beds, will be necessary.
The UKGOV is fighting a war against Covid – 19. In any war, the leaders must be allowed to make decisions and judgements, decide how to fight the battles, the tactics, and how best to deploy resources But it needs its armies – that is all its citizens – to play their part and collaborate even when they may not see the wisdom of every decision. Unity of purpose is critical, and all parts must pull their weight in executing the plan. There will be sacrifices but, in most cases, they will not be that severe if approached with resilience.
CLEAR ACTIONS AND FACTS
Does anybody sensible dispute the following:
- CV is likely to infect hundreds of thousands of people, maybe several million, over the coming weeks and months
- the younger one is, the less vulnerable one is (unless a special condition applies ) and children are not generally at serious risk; but the elderly, say over 70, and especially if they have a relevant underlying health issue already, are most at risk of serious problems and of death through infection so they should stay at home
- if they are infected, the vast majority of people will experience something like a cold, a mild bad feeling
- each citizen has an important role to play by following recommended guidelines of the UKGOV, including washing hands and sanitizing as instructed; if showing certain symptoms, to minimise the risk of infecting others and self-isolate themselves at home and otherwise for a period of at least 7 days; to minimise their demands on the NHS and not seek medical assistance, unless symptoms are quite serious (of course there will be grey areas around symptoms, periods of time to isolate and assessing all circumstances)
- citizens’ important role includes also behaving with consideration for other citizens and to act as a community with mutual assistance and respect: criminals may seek ways to capitalise on the uncertainties and suffering of ordinary people, but otherwise greed, self-interest and panic behaviour, such as through panic buying and stockpiling, must be suppressed, and resilience must be nurtured. Peer pressure will be important.
If these facts are accepted, and such behaviours followed, there is no doubt that the impact of CV will be reduced and the cohesiveness of social fabric maintained, so that any damage done can be repaired when the worst is past. An important common message is that this dangerous period will pass. There is an interesting article in The Times of 14thMarch by Ben Macintyre headlined “La Peste shows how to handle a pandemic. Albert Camus’s novel suggests quiet courage and decency are the greatest virtues at times like this”.
WHAT ELSE SHOULD BE DONE?
In the above context, it is right and natural that journalists and others, including scientific experts and politicians, should hold the UKGOV to account and ask questions of it to ensure it is doing its best to wage the war, win it as best possible (while not yet knowing what is possible long term) and contain the damage, including serious casualties. There is transparent honesty that there will be a number of deaths and other casualties, particularly among the elderly and the weakest among us. But it is very important that in pursuit of questions and open debate, confusion is not sewn among citizens generally, clear messages and trust are not undermined and that other political or personal agendas are put to one side.
It is important too that media agencies behave responsibly in not sowing doubt and despair, and negativism, focussing on problems not solutions, when after all criticism and bad news are so much more newsworthy than a united effort.
Certain recent commentaries are potentially undermining. It has to be asked what the motive of the editor of the Lancet is in declaring that their colleagues advising the Government has it all wrong, and that the Government is playing roulette with the public. Should not debate be more rational and scientific, and where scientific perhaps be first done privately? What is the purpose of Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the Health Committee, second guessing Government judgement and suggesting it simply follows other countries’ decisions? Does Gordon Brown have access to special medical know how beyond the Government that he can say the UKGOV is behind the curve? Is not Twitter full of amateurish and largely unhelpful opinions, really gossip, that suggest the UKGOV is doing nothing and tossing out their homespun advice on how to combat CV? Should the journalists on Breakfast and NEWS TV be questioning interviewees in the same tone and attitude of the Brexit debate? Individual stories are human interest relevant, but the endless sympathy of how tough it must be to be at home for 7 days, or being unable to cuddle Granny, or to miss a sporting event is really nonsense: the influencers need to be ramming home the important behaviours, ensuring a united community and fostering resilience, courage and decency.
Constructive suggestion from informed sources on how the country can put itself in a better position and respectful discussion must be welcomed. But holding society together, not dividing it, has never been more important. The approach perhaps should include minimising complaint, accepting the inconveniences and smaller hardships, and turning the challenges into opportunities to improve behaviour, habits, cohesion and in many other ways.
https://sherbhert.com/coronavirus-and-other-c-words/
https://sherbhert.com/broken-britain-the-nhs-is-not-broken/
https://sherbhert.com/resilience-bouncing-back/
https://sherbhert.com/resilience-more-bouncing-back/
https://sherbhert.com/resilience-stress-and-bouncing-back/
