Opinion Policy Analysis by Francesco Pitzalis, Staff Writer

January 5th, 2021

National lockdowns in the UK have proven their worth irrespective of Boris Johnson’s proclivity for indecision. The first national lockdown slashed cases from a peak of 5482 on the 22nd of April to 401 on the 4th of July. Likewise, a national lockdown imposed from the 5th of November to 3rd of December 2020 elicited successful drops in cases and hospital admissions (see figure 1). 

However, the partial success of the November lockdown was underscored by increases in cases, hospital admissions and deaths in London and the South East of England. This has been correlated with the emergence of the B117 variant of the coronavirus. A study by Imperial College London estimated the B117 variant to have to an R number 0.4 to 0.7 greater than previous variants. Thus, the new variant is more transmissible and demands a shifting of mitigation strategies. This strategy must include more restrictive measures than the November lockdown, as indicated by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) committee – 

“It is highly unlikely that measures with stringency and adherence in line with the measures in England in November would be sufficient to maintain R below one in the presence of the new variant.”

The SAGE committee’s advice pertains to the status of schools. Schools remained open in the November lockdown and were likely the root cause of surging cases in London and the South East. This was corroborated by figures indicating that children aged 10-19 have the highest transmission rate of the B117 variant. Scientists have accordingly postulated that the new variant may be more transmissible in children of school age. Thus, future lockdowns should include the closure of schools until they can be made sufficiently COVID-secure. The closure of schools is undeniably considered a last resort due to the social, psychological and educational impacts  that school closure inflicts on a child’s education. Thus, we must consider the epidemiological situation that has provoked such harsh mitigation strategies.  

All recorded variables indicate that a crisis is immanent. On the 2nd of January 57,725 new cases were recorded with a record 53,285 patients being treated in hospital. This is over double the number of patients in hospital (23,823) during the peak of the first wave. Current metrics translate to a pitiful situation on the ground. On the 29th of December intensive care units in London and the South East exceeded maximum capacity, with occupancy reaching 114 and 113 percent respectively. Doctors have also reported that “hospitals are running out of oxygen”. Worryingly, modelling predicts that new cases, hospital admissions and deaths will peak in mid-January. Thus, to put it bluntly, the worst is yet to come. The UK is therefore hurtling towards a consensus worst case scenario – the overwhelming of the National Health Service. This ominous possibility should ring alarm bells amongst even the most ardent anti-lockdown advocates. The overwhelming of the health service ushers in the possibility of coronavirus patients dying without appropriate healthcare and neglect of patients suffering from non-COVID related diseases. It is clear that to avoid a healthcare and moral disaster, the UK government should impose all possible measures to stop the spread of the virus. 

What must this entail? A national lockdown is the answer. But don’t take it from me, this has been the resolute advice of the SAGE committee since the 30th of December – “A nationwide lockdown with immediate effect is vitally necessary now.”

This advice has seemingly bypassed the eardrums of Boris Johnson. Instead, the government enforced a last-minute closing of London Primary Schools on the 31st of January. The move chalks up another humiliating U-turn on Boris Johnson’s long list of blunders. Furthermore, in typical Boris style, the closure of London Primary Schools is another token measure to circumvent nationwide lockdowns. Boris has instead clung dearly onto a “tier system” -  which bases the severity of restrictions on coronavirus threat level. In theory, this system should tailor a response region by region and limit overall economic impact. However, in practice, its effectiveness has been often disappointing. The tier system’s malleability combined with government floundering has contributed to an increase in public confusion and a decrease in trust. This leads to decreased compliance and an increased rate of transmission. Any response tiered or nationwide has to be clear, decisive and consistent with the science – the UK government has therefore failed on all accounts.  

Government indecision to implement lockdowns has occurred in light of an ailing UK economy and the potential for mass immunisation. 

Those who insist on the unconditional openness of the UK’s economy require a second look at the chaos that followed the outbreak of the new variant. The subsequent closure of trade routes connecting the UK to the continent were a hammer blow to Christmas trade and a bitter pill to swallow for the UK economy. Likewise, economic models have persistently indicated that failure to clamp down on coronavirus surges results in more economically damaging measures in the long run. This was most saliently observed in the Scandinavian nations. In the Spring, Denmark entered lockdown faster than its Nordic neighbours and was subsequently able to reopen its economy earlier. Sweden, who famously forewent restrictive measures, suffered an economic contraction of 2.9% GDP (2020), compared to Denmark whose economy grew by 4.4% GDP. 

Although not directly comparable to the early stages of the pandemic, the new variant is a novel threat. Therefore, a cautious, stringent approach should be employed towards its mitigation in order to get a grip on its spread and reopen the UK economy sustainably. Dithering and overreacting down the road is clearly an epidemiological and economical recipe for disaster. 

The UK should also be acutely aware of complacency during its vaccination programme. Experts warn that vaccination is insufficient to supplant the current surge in cases. Therefore, with light at the end of the tunnel, the UK should not hesitate to implement national lockdowns in order to minimise unnecessary deaths. Complacency at this stage may also incentivize a more insidious risk. In late September, the SAGE commission implored Boris Johnson to impose a national lockdown. As we know, the government hesitated and the B117 variant has since run riot. Caution at this stage is required, if anything, to prevent natural selection from doing its work. With vaccination and effective therapeutics available, the selection pressures governing the virus’s ability to mutate are greater. Therefore, curtailing the rate of transmission and alertness to novel threats are imperative. 

The coronavirus pandemic exerts a dynamic and pervasive influence on our lives. We all, of course have to learn to live with the virus. However, learning to live with the virus does not permit negligence and complacency. As the UK verges on a health crisis, the measures to mitigate the spread of coronavirus should be its primary concern. The UK needs another national lockdown now.