We should be able to impose our own form of lockdown – this government hasn’t got a clue

Lockdowns no longer work. With infection rates rising in almost every area they’ve been imposed, we’re threatened with further local restrictions in the midlands and the north of England, which the government claim will be “nuanced”. No wonder mutiny is in the air. A huge part of Scotland is more or less shut as of yesterday, as Nicola Sturgeon attempts to stem the rising infection rate in the central belt.  

Our lives are in the hands of politicians deeply concerned about their image, about sounding statesmanlike and APPEARING to have a plan – although that plan involves numerous U-turns and last-minute directives. Throughout, they’ve seemed reticent to share details of the science guiding the decisions which severely impact our daily lives. This behaviour wouldn’t wash in the boardroom at somewhere like Tesco – so why should it be acceptable in public life?  

What’s behind this shocking lack of transparency, which has left council leaders and mayors like Andy Burnham enraged and the public distrustful and mutinous? This week we learned that “listening to the science” (as the government claims to do) offers two radically different ways of going forward.

In one camp are thousands of scientists and medical experts who have signed a global declaration stating that lockdowns are failing to control the pandemic. They back herd immunity, advocating that only the elderly and the vulnerable should be protected and the rest of us should return to our daily lives maintaining careful behaviour (mask wearing and social distancing) whenever possible.  

Boris Johnson is being advised by the opposing group – the majority of Sage members, and Messrs Whitty and Vallance, who want further restrictions to protect the NHS, while keeping schools open. Nicola Sturgeon’s advisors broadly agree with this strategy. Although hospital admissions in England are the highest since June, the number of deaths remains below that for seasonal flu. And the largest number of deaths are those aged over 85. Does that make the severe impact on mental health, on education, unemployment and the destruction of whole sectors of the economy, worth it? Members of the cabinet like the chancellor seem to disagree. When will they manage to force a rethink?

Now, a new study by Edinburgh University adds fuel to the argument that lockdowns might help control the rate of hospital admissions, but do not bring down the numbers infected and will not bring down the total number of deaths, just delay them.

The end result will be exactly the same no matter which strategy – herd immunity or lockdown – is put into effect. Almost 10,000 scientists have signed a declaration backing herd immunity.  

The government’s masterplan – protecting the NHS above everything else – has not been a huge success for people suffering from other illnesses. The 12-month waiting list has reached a 12-year high and the number of people whose treatment for cancer has been delayed has reached an all-time high (only one in four get treatment within two months of diagnosis), with oncologists predicting tens of thousands of avoidable deaths. Domestic abuse has soared, (along with the divorce rate) and there are huge concerns about young people’s mental health, with one in four saying they have experienced anxiety and stress.

As for a vaccine, a report from the Royal Society says that even when one becomes widely available – hopefully next spring – life will not return to normal for at least a year and that social distancing and other measures will need to remain in place.

Given all of the above, isn’t it time that the public were allowed to think for themselves, to choose which of the two scientific views to follow? Grant us the right to impose our own form of personal lockdown and limits to freedom which suit our age, our mental and physical health. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to avoiding the virus, it’s a question of quantifying the amount of personal risk each of us is prepared to take.

When the police are being given money to impose some form of quasi-martial law on the streets of our towns and northern cities, it’s clear life has become ridiculous. It’s patently obvious that the public must be treated like grown-ups and allowed – as the citizens of Sweden have been – to get on with their lives.  

The virus has spread through multi-generational households in poorer areas and ethnic communities as much as pubs. It’s not spreading through the behaviour of pensioners, the very young or school children. These two groups – the young and the old – have suffered the most with social deprivation, not being allowed to see friends, attend school or mix freely. Fresh lockdowns will not change the spread in crowded, low-income homes, and for many, the mental strain will be unbearable.  

Going forward, we have to be the guardians of our own health – Johnson says he doesn’t favour the “nanny state” and evidence shows that large numbers of the public agree and are increasingly likely to ignore or misinterpret new rules.

The current policies around hospitality – curfews for pubs and restaurants (which Scotland was forced to admit were confusing and offer further clarification) – are ill-thought-out and will decimate an industry which brings pleasure to so many as well as performing a kind of social glue that medics and the cash-strapped NHS mental health experts can’t provide. 

A one-size-fits-all ban on eating out and drinking is grossly unfair – restaurants which have spent a fortune on introducing cleansing, social distancing and careful service do not deserve to be penalised like crowded city centre pubs. Instead of a blanket closure at 10pm (or 6pm), why don’t politicians have the guts to remove booze from the shelves of supermarkets, impose a virus tax on alcohol and control the hours it is sold in state-run shops?

Time to give us the right to choose how to run our lives.