Embed from Getty Images
While we may disagree on the timing of the UK government introducing the Covid-19 lockdown, I hope we can all agree that doing so was a necessary measure.
However, it’s a holding measure, not a solution in itself. It is becoming apparent that the scenario of staying in lockdown till Covid-19 is eradicated, or at least until it’s constrained in known isolated pockets in hospital ITUs, is highly unlikely. With no coordinated international response, even if we were to achieve this in the UK, there would be high probability of infection being reintroduced. If we have similar (or higher) infection rates than other countries, it’s even arguable whether closing the borders would make any significant difference to the situation in the UK.
The lockdown is a rather blunt tool. It’s a list of permissible activities – a straightforward public health message that can be quickly conveyed. It’s not perfect – jogging or cycling can still result in injury, placing additional pressure on A&E. Perspiring and breathing heavily in public parks bring their own risks of transmission. You can still go to the supermarket as often as you like, for as long as you like, wearing no protection, even if you’re in a vulnerable group. So let’s not kid ourselves that this lockdown is perfect. And while we’re at it, let’s not kid ourselves that this lockdown is sustainable indefinitely.
Ideally, all activity would be assessed for its statistical probability of virus transmission, and a highly refined lockdown could then be issued. Unfortunately, this would be an impossibly complex public health message to convey. So what’s the way out of this?