London (CNN)There was something contradictory in Boris Johnson's speech about Britain's response to the coronavirus on Thursday.
Flanked
by the country's chief scientific and medical advisers, the Prime
Minister announced that his government was moving to the "delay" phase
of its plan to tackle the outbreak, and warned Britons that they were
facing their "worst public health crisis for a generation" and should be
prepared "to lose loved ones before their time."
And
yet, faced with such grave prospects, would the UK be taking the same
stringent precautions as other affected countries? No, was the answer.
At least not for now.
The
British government has repeatedly said it does not believe that banning
large-scale gatherings and closing schools -- like Italy, France,
Germany and Spain have done -- would be effective in preventing the
spread of the disease.
This comes
despite the fact that parts of the British Isles, including the
Republic of Ireland and Scotland (which is in the UK but has a separate
healthcare system), are now emulating their continental neighbors.
More analysis on the outbreak
However,
with Johnson under pressure to do the same, the government said late on
Friday it was planning to publish emergency legislation to ban large
events.
"Ministers are working with
the chief scientific adviser and chief medical officer on our plan to
stop various types of public event, including mass gatherings, beginning
next week," a Whitehall source told PA Media.
"We are also talking to businesses and other bodies about the timing of moving towards much more widespread working from home.
"We
have drafted emergency legislation to give the government the powers it
needs to deal with coronavirus, including powers to stop mass
gatherings and compensate organizations."
The
reason the UK has held off stricter "social distancing" measures
appears to be rooted in the government's prediction that the outbreak
may not peak until 14 weeks from now -- and that people will not be
willing to drastically alter their ways of life and stick to the new
rules for over three months, so there's little point imposing more
restrictions just yet.
The
latest recommendation for Britons is to self-isolate for seven days if
they begin to experience a persistent cough or high temperature, and to
continue with rigorous hygiene like frequently washing their hands and
disinfecting surfaces.
Government
ministers claim their decisions are being led purely by science. That
science, they say, currently suggests that it would be beneficial for
the country to build up some sort of herd immunity to the novel
coronavirus strain in the long run. In short, authorities do want some
Britons to get the bug, especially since for many, its symptoms will not
be particularly debilitating.
The
approach has divided opinion in the medical community. Some experts
have accused Johnson of failing to grasp the severity of the situation,
while others have praised the government for refusing to bow to
continent-wide pressure to clamp down on the public's movements.
As
of Friday, the number of confirmed cases in the UK stood at 798, with
10 deaths. However, the government's chief scientific adviser Patrick
Vallance has admitted it was possible that 5,000 to 10,000 people may
already be infected. And with testing capacity now about to be ramped up
to 10,000 people a day, numbers will surely rise.
Medics warn of complacency
Government
scientists said they have noticed that the virus typically results in a
mild infection initially for patients with no underlying health
conditions, which lasts about five days, but for the elderly or infirm,
the pathogen enters a second phase thereafter, prompting an immune
response that causes much of the damage that kills.
The
experts' hope is that the UK's new plan will push the disease's peak
past the traditional end of the flu season in April and into the summer,
when the country's hospitals will be under less strain.
But
many prominent members of the medical community are unconvinced by the
government's approach. Doctors on the front line of intensive care units
have warned about the potential lack of respirators, as seen in Italy
and China when cases peaked there, and said that if staff become sick
themselves, access to experienced labor could become a problem.
The
editor-in-chief of the influential journal The Lancet criticized the
UK's response to the crisis. "To avoid an unmanageable catastrophe in
the UK, we need to be honest about what seems likely to happen in coming
weeks. We need urgent surge capacity in intensive care. The NHS is not
prepared," Richard Horton tweeted Thursday.
"I
am not being alarmist. What is happening in Italy is real and taking
place now. Our government is not preparing us for that reality. We need
immediate and assertive social distancing and closure policies. We need
to prepare the NHS. This is a serious plea."
For
a country that until fairly recently routinely imposed quarantines on
family pets, it's ironic that Johnson's "island mentality" -- made
famous by his enthusiastic support for leaving the European Union --
seems not to stretch to public health, for ministers dismissed the
suggestion Britain could shut its borders as US President Donald Trump ordered this week.
'He's not doing a Trump'
Some scientists did offer words of support for the UK's measures.
"I
am the first to admit that I'm not Boris Johnson's biggest fan. But I'm
relatively impressed that unlike other political leaders, who've kind
of bowed to the pressure of each other and their populations to
implement school closures -- which we don't have enough evidence to know
if it will make a difference or not -- Johnson is listening to the
current evidence that's out there," Dr. Clare Wenham, assistant
professor of global health policy at the London School of Economics,
told CNN.
"He's not doing a Trump
and shutting down borders, which we know will have no effect. He's
taking a rather measured approach now -- but yes, it's a gamble."
Wenham
added that she believed the government's priority was to avoid panic,
and ensure the public's cooperation with prevention measures.
"It's
a political gamble if they get it wrong. If all the countries that
implemented school closures and mass travel and mass gatherings see
reductions in rates, and the rates in the UK are soaring -- that's a
gamble," she said.
"We know for
example that shutting schools works for influenza because children are
super-spreaders. We don't know if that's true for coronavirus yet. But I
think the government is saying 'look, we don't yet know if kids are
super-spreaders. So, why cause all the havoc of disrupting people's
lives?'"
Keith Neal, emeritus
professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University
of Nottingham, also said he backed moves to contain the outbreak.
"The
plans are sensible, it is very easy to say more needs to be done, but
there is little evidence to make any decision," he told PA Media.
But
former health secretary Jeremy Hunt told the BBC that many people "will
be surprised and concerned" by the lack of action in controlling
movements. "I think it is surprising and concerning that we're not doing
any of it at all when we have just four weeks before we get to the
stage that Italy is at.
"You would
have thought that every single thing we do in that four weeks would be
designed to slow the spread of people catching the virus."
'Spray, pay and pray'
Where the government has been more comfortable making decisive moves is on the economy.
New
Chancellor Rishi Sunak this week put emergency funds on the table in
his maiden budget -- not just to shore up the UK's National Health
Service at a time of emergency, but also to shield small- to
medium-sized businesses and the "gig economy," replete with freelancers, from the effects of having staff off sick or working from home in isolation.
In a coordinated approach, the Bank of England also cut rates and announced stimulus.
The strategy was dubbed "Spray, pay and pray" by the Financial Times' Lex column.
And
therein lies the clue: Downing Street seems to think the panic caused
by the new strain of the virus -- or Covid-19 as it has become known --
could be more dangerous in the long run than the actual illness itself.
Whether
the gamble of "keeping calm and carrying on" in the face of the
coronavirus is the appropriate approach, only time will tell.


No comments:
Post a Comment