I have to confess that I've lost faith in the strategy of endless lockdowns.
I'd agree that a full lockdown, strictly and ruthlessly applied, can arrest the spread of infection. But it can only be a temporary measure. After the first (mostly) willing compliance, people get restless and in some cases desperate; social mixing takes place; and the effectiveness of the lockdown is compromised. A regime prepared to use lethal force against its citizens (such as China) can enforce a very strict lockdown, but it can never be perfect because there are always those prepared to defy authority, or evade its surveillance, and continue their activities with the risk of eventual infection. How less perfect, then, are the UK lockdowns we have endured so far, whether full or only partial. Truly, half-measures produce only half a result.
The first, total, national lockdown launched in March was (mostly) supported and followed in a 'Dunkirk Spirit'. It was indeed almost popular in some quarters. We clapped the NHS, didn't we, and cheered on Essential Workers. We were, so it seemed, all in it together. If there wasn't absolutely complete compliance, there was at least a recognition across the board that following the rules was important, and that it was wrong to disregard them. The rules were few and very easy to remember - essentially Practice Social Distancing, Wash Your Hands Properly, and Stay At Home. And it did seem to work. The graphs in those daily briefings on TV did show a slow-down in the rate of infection, and the deaths lessened, and then we saw a definite decline in numbers. Hurrah, the national lockdown had done the trick! So in July, with a big sigh of relief, the most onerous restrictions were relaxed.
To be frank, I think that by July we'd all had enough, and the July relaxations came just in time before civil disobedience could have set in. The disobedience would have been widespread. It had become apparent that various Important People had considered themselves exempt from the rules, and had disregarded them for personal reasons. That was bad enough; that some paid no penalty for their transgression was shocking and vastly discouraging to the general population. It was clear that we were not in fact 'all in it together'. And so, rightly or wrongly, a lot of ordinary people felt that they might as well disregard the rules too. After all, what's sauce for the goose...
And I'm sure they are still not obeying them. They will have assessed the risks, and concluded that (a) they are not likely to suffer a bad illness; (b) sanctions are unlikely to be imposed on them; and (c) they can ignore the risk they present to any vulnerable person they encounter. Their personal behaviour can't possibly matter. Their convenience, their fun, most certainly does. And it won't be their fault if a tiresome old pensioner falls ill and dies.
Apart from the exasperated mood of the public by July there was also the frightening cost of the national lockdown: it was ruinously expensive to support wages and salaries, even partially. The tax take had fallen. Borrowing was easy but it would have to be repaid - the IMF and the international debt agencies would insist on a realistic repayment plan. The national debt had become staggering.
And of course, now, in October, that debt - the bits announced, and the bits kept hidden - must be beyond belief. And yet those clamouring for even more income support seem oblivious to the financial burden being placed on future generations. The economy has been started up again, but must be kept going, so that the future financial pain can be managed. The brutal truth is, we can't afford to have another national lockdown with the same level of income support. Even limited regional lockdowns are becoming hard to bankroll. The same with targeted support, whether meritorious or not, such as free school meals, and bailing out casinos.
All that said, the government may still cave in to pressure and try another national lockdown. It's now being termed a 'firewall' or 'circuit break', because that sounds dramatic and effective. How euphemisms proliferate, when disruptive measures are hard to sell and need rebranding! But it would depend on everyone cooperating wholeheartedly, and I don't think that Dunkirk Spirit will be revived. Goodwill has been squandered, and too many people are more inclined now to take their chances with the risk of infection.
So I hope they give up on lockdowns. Emergency local measures will have their place, but I'd prefer to see everything opened up, and freedoms restored, and in general just leave it to individuals to manage their own welfare, using their own common-sense.
Certainly, the government must advise everyone most forcefully - and keep telling them - that the virus is still out there, and potentially dangerous, and that they should observe social distancing, good hygiene, and (if they are medically vulnerable) an appropriate degree of social isolation. All until the vaccine arrives, or the virus peters out. Under this kind of regime, I (and like-minded people in my position) would still be exercising great caution, opting out of any meetups that carried a worrying risk, and yes, wearing a mask where strangers gather and are bound to get too close. And avoiding possible infection carriers, such as young children, or those whose personal habits and attitudes are plainly unhealthy. It's not hard to do the best thing for one's own self-preservation.
What about the likelihood of increased deaths? Well, surely a vulnerable adult individual, if mentally able, should be allowed to decide what suits them best. If they are willing to accept a greater risk of infection and a serious illness, then let them choose that and enjoy the good things that they get from it. If on the other hand they want to be shielded - effectively voluntary solitary confinement - then they should be given every possible assistance with that kind of approach. That's where the money should go.
