Generosity, plus a tighter and better-policed lockdown, is needed to tackle coronavirus

The lockdown-busting wedding party of some 400 guests in London has been seized upon by some as emblematic of public failure to abide by social distancing and, by extension, the worsening situation in hospital wards. The public, in other words, is being blamed, implicitly or not, for the spike in suffering and deaths witnessed in recent weeks, notwithstanding some tentative signs of improvement.

There have certainly been some egregious examples of anti-social-distancing behaviour, but holding the general public responsible for some sort of wanton disregard for human life – of others if not their own – seems a misunderstanding. 

A substantial section of the population, especially older and more vulnerable people, are already voluntarily observing self-isolation regimes that are more restrictive than the government’s rules. Polling shows some support for tougher, longer lockdowns, rather than the reverse. 

The streets are not teeming with revellers, maskless or otherwise. The arguments of the lockdown sceptics, mainly to be found in the more libertarian pockets of the Conservative Party, are gaining little traction. If lockdowns are not working, or not working as well as in the past, the appropriate conclusion to be drawn is that the lockdown needs to be tighter and better policed. It looks obvious now that the relaxations in December were a dangerous error.

Restrictions also need to be better supported financially. The longer the crisis continues, the tougher things are for businesses and hard-pressed families, piling on debt and making their employment ever more precarious. It has been plain all along that the provision for income support for those testing positive is inadequate. 

If people feel that they cannot afford to take the time off work to stay at home, then they cannot do the right thing for themselves, their families and communities as a whole. Neither are they providing contact details of those they know are in a similarly exposed position financially. The leaked proposal of a £500 Covid payment would cost a huge amount of public money, but would be cheaper than keeping the country in lockdown for longer than necessary.

The idea, in this context, that those testing positive should be monitored with the threat of prosecution for not staying at home is ludicrously counterproductive. On-the-spot fines for blatant breaches of the rules may be suitable in some cases, but they would only force those with symptoms to evade testing for as long as they can.

The other quite obvious reason why matters have taken a turn for the worse is the arrival of the various new variants. These are more transmissible and possibly sometimes more deadly than the original version. Before long, as the virus evolves, there may be new ones that can resist the vaccine and attack the young. Yet the current lockdown, difficult as it is to live under, is more relaxed than the one last spring, and with a still inadequate test and tracing infrastructure and financial support for those who catch the virus. 

Observance of lockdown may be less than it was in the past, partly because of mixed messaging and the lingering effects of the Dominic Cummings affair on public confidence in the authorities. Even if it was, there is no alternative to this admittedly crude and economically ruinous approach. There is, though, a better way of running the lockdown, with more generosity and skill, and it is certainly not too late to try it.