LONDON: It is the end of the beginning: lockdowns after the first wave of coronavirus are being tentatively lifted. It is not a step we are taking with any great confidence of success. Rather, were easing the lockdowns because we cant bear to wait any longer.
That will mean some difficult decisions ahead, in particular about how we look out for each other in a world where our experiences and the risks we face are dramatically diverging.
It is clear enough that the virus could easily rebound: a systematic study conducted by the Office for National Statistics suggested that 100,000 to 200,000 people in England alone were still infected with the virus in early May. The lockdown has merely bought us time.
LISTEN: Why lifting lockdowns and easing restrictions may be the biggest COVID-19 test facing countries
One hope is that we can now contain the virus through widespread testing, contact tracing and the supported isolation of infected people. One cogent plan for this comes from the Safra Center at Harvard University.
But the UK seems in no position to implement anything like this plan. Boris Johnson, the prime minister, has promised a contact-tracing system by Jun 1 that will be “world-beating” — an obnoxious synonym for “excellent”.
I do not believe him, particularly since his government has repeatedly misrepresented its record on testing.
The Safra Center plan calls for 2 per cent to 6 per cent of the population being tested every day. In the UK, that would be 1.3 million to 4 million people daily; we are currently testing well under 100,000 a day.
WEIGHING THE RISKS
For now, then, we are stuck trying to maximise the benefits of reopening while minimising the risk. That suggests drawing bright lines between those who should unlock and those who should not.
We have long accepted that a supermarket is more of a priority than a restaurant, but other dividing lines would be uncomfortable.
Would we be happy for London to reopen while Manchester stays closed, or vice versa?
There is a powerful moral case that we should all be going through the same sacrifices at the same time, but if we seek to save the greatest number of lives while destroying the fewest livelihoods, we may have to start drawing distinctions that make us squirm.
The most obvious such distinction would be to ease the lockdown only for the young.
In the five weeks from late March to the start of May, nearly 29,000 people over the age of 65 died from COVID-19 in England and Wales.
Only 375 people aged under 45 died in the same period. Late boomers and Gen-Xers like me, aged 45 to 64, are in the middle: nearly 3,500 of us died.
Could we countenance a plan to allow the under-40s back into pubs and restaurants, while the rest of us stick to Zoom and Ocado? Then if signs of herd immunity emerged, we could send in the reserves — the 40-somethings like me.
THE MORAL DILEMMA
Is this really a good idea? I am genuinely unsure.
Perhaps the practical objection is insuperable: it might be impossible to protect vulnerable people while allowing the virus to run riot in the young.
But I suspect the real objection is not practical, but moral. Something about sending half the population out while the other half stays indoors feels unfair.
READ: Commentary: Lockdown and isolation sound simple – but keeping people at home is no easy answer
That is true even if it is not entirely clear which side of the age divide is worse off — the ones enduring boredom and isolation inside, or the ones facing the virus.
And what of people who find themselves able to drink in public one day, then banned from their own 40th birthday party the next?
Clear distinctions on a spreadsheet or graph start to seem absurd in everyday life. And it could be much worse.
Ethnic minorities are at greater risk; are we to advocate whites-only restaurants and whites-only public transport on the grounds that it is not safe for those with dark skin? The idea is self-evidently repugnant.