Second peak or ripple?

I strikes me that part of the psychological problem at the moment is that the current situation is outside the experience of anyone alive. Oh, sure, Spanish flu was just over a century ago so a very small number of people still around were alive then. But they were too young then to remember it now. We look to our leaders and they don't currently have answers. The sobering fact is that we don't have much more at our disposal yet than they did in the middle ages combating plague: keeping apart and isolation. They didn't use the phrase "social distancing" then but that's what it is.

We can have hope because we do have much better hygiene standards, with cleaning products and (when available) protective clothing. The bane of our modern life, the single use plastic, is suddenly appreciated again, though I wish some of our hard pressed carers wouldn't chuck disposable plastic gloves away on the pavement. Mrs H and I have seen that rather a lot, even spotting a discarded blue plastic glove towards the top of 'one of the most important and historic hills in Wales', the 320ft bump behind our house (quote from a Welsh walking guide). And the scientific skills and know how that have been developed over the last century hold out the hope of developing strategies based around testing and, hopefully, vaccination.

There has been a lot of pressure to roll out testing but Hancock and his experts have been right to say that we need confidence in the tests. They have been rapidly developed and its not yet clear how accurate they are.

So we have to buy time for the scientists to do their stuff. And balance the needs of restarting the economy with the inevitable further waves of infections. Not just a second wave, pandemics of the past have never been like that. Which is why I worry about the fifth of the government's five tests for easing restrictions. I've heard several ministers describe it as  "there should be no risk of a second peak", which strikes me as being as unachievable as Gordon Brown's tests for joining the euro. As soon as we ease the restrictions the infection rate will increase again.  Whether that will be a second peak depends on whether we can keep the curve fairly flat, with R never going much more than 1 and generally less. One could argue, semantically, that this wouldn't mean a second "peak" I suppose, more of a ripple. But it will still be an increase.

I couldn't easily find the government announcement for the precise wording of the fifth test. But, while most sources describe the it as being avoiding a second peak (for example BBC say "being confident any adjustments would not risk a second peak") LBC quote Business Secretary Sharma saying the the test is:

“We need to be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelm the NHS." (My emphasis).

Which is at least in line with the government's rationale for entering lockdown.

So therefore I don't accept the suggestion in the New Statesman* that the five tests have been deliberately set to remain unmet until Boris Johnson returned so he can adjudicate between a divided cabinet on how to end the lockdown.

Our own observations are that, while most people we encounter follow what have become the polite social distancing protocols - dancing aside, stepping off the pavement or clambering up a grassy pathside bank to make space - some younger people seem to be in a world of their own and plough past at one arm's length. (Cyclists - just because you're on a bike is no excuse. If the space is narrow you might, heaven forbid have to dismount, shock, horror! And just because you're on the road and I'm on the pavement doesn't mean that you aren't too close!).

So when the restrictions ease I think it is inevitable more people will push the boundaries and behaviours will probably slide a bit. My guess? Somewhere between a second peak and a ripple. The question that follows is whether that would lead to cycles of loosening and tightening.  As neighbouring countries all seem to be planning something a little bit different there should be plenty of experience captured over the next couple of months to learn from, though disentangling cause and effect may be difficult.

Unfortunately the political concensus that has held for a month seems to be fraying as the opposition see opportunities to chip away. There will be plenty of good ammunition in due course from the inevitable inquiry - and well before the next general election. So I find any game playing rather tiresome and rewriting of history even more so. While there were some calls for the UK to move into lockdown earlier than it did, they were muted. For example, shadow health bod Jonathan Ashworth has claimed he was doing so. I've checked what you said Jonny boy and the only thing I can find is from the Commons debate on 23 March hours before the lockdown was announced when the strongest thing you said was "something has to change". Your new leader called for "further compliance measures". And by then the government announcement was no doubt already being drafted if not ready to roll.

Not exactly shouting it, were you Jonathan? Shabby, mate.


I will accept politicians and journalists saying "why aren't we doing x or more of y or z" as long as they recognise that most people in the fray are overloaded so prioritisation is essential. Trying to make themselves look wise after the event?  Spare us your sanctimony, people are trying to do an important job.


* https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/04/why-uk-government-s-five-tests-ending-lockdown-are-so-hard-meet
** https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/johnson-faces-pressure-to-order-coronavirus-lockdown/