Lockdown easing has turned into a trade-off between lives and livelihoods

Editorial: Boris Johnson must ensure maximum caution on further moves to ease restrictions until the impact of Monday’s changes has been fully assessed

People enjoy the sunshine on the beach at Southend-on-Sea in Essex over the weekend (EPA)

The UK is undoubtedly at a “very dangerous moment” in the coronavirus pandemic, as Jonathan Van-Tam, England’s deputy chief medical officer, put it. Although some lockdown restrictions are being eased today, several members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) have expressed doubts because the number of new coronavirus infections remains at 8,000 a day.

They are right to be worried; the number of new infections is higher than when the lockdown was imposed in March. The government insists its test and trace scheme, rushed out four days earlier than planned to distract attention from the Dominic Cummings affair, can cope with 10,000 new cases a day. But it remains to be seen whether the programme will measure up to the scale of the complex task. Alarmingly, it will not be fully up and running until the end of June.

Dominic Raab, the cabinet minister sent out to bat on the Sunday television shows, lacked much personal protective equipment. He hailed as “steady progress” the 800 fewer new cases, 200 fewer people in critical care and 27 fewer deaths last week than in the previous one. But it is not as “steady” as ministers hoped. They had intended to announce by now that the country had moved from level four (“transmission is high or rising exponentially”) to level three (a general epidemic allowing a “gradual relaxing of restrictions and social distancing measures”). That would have provided some cover for the changes, but for now ministers can merely repeat unconvincingly that such a “transition” is underway.

Any relaxation, such as the phased reopening of schools in England or allowing up to six people to meet outdoors if they keep two metres apart, is bound to involve an element of risk. If no calculated risks were taken, a full lockdown would remain in place until a vaccine or drug treatment were found, inflicting terrible damage on the economy in the meantime.

Ministers claim there is no trade-off between lives and livelihoods, but there is. Whether they like it or not, it is their responsibility to perform this very difficult balancing act. It has suited politicians to argue they are “following the science”. Their medical and scientific advisers have provided them with useful protection. No doubt some ministers, looking ahead with trepidation to a public inquiry into their response to the pandemic, hope the mantra will put the scientists alongside them in the dock when they have to account for the UK’s relatively high death rate.

At last, the “following the science” myth is being punctured. Until now, the scientists and the politicians have broadly agreed on both “how” and “when” the rules should be relaxed. But a difference has clearly emerged over the “when.” Some Sage members point out that today’s change is a political decision. Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, said yesterday that he and his colleagues on Sage must give independent advice without fear or favour, but that “ministers must decide and have to take many other factors into consideration”. Naturally, these include the economy; there is no point in politicians pretending otherwise.

Mr Vallance was right to say that Sage’s recommendations should be published as close to real time as feasible. Ministers would do well to embrace such openness, rather than continue to issue redacted minutes of Sage meetings long after the event. They should publish immediately at least a summary of the scientific advice about the latest changes and explain their decision about the balance of risk. As the rules become more nuanced, it will be even more important for the government to take the public with it.

Boris Johnson must ensure maximum caution on further moves to ease the lockdown until the impact of today’s changes has been fully assessed. He should resist the temptation to chase crowd-pleasing headlines or give in to demands from Tory MPs worried about the economy, until the overwhelming majority of his scientific experts advise that further changes would not risk a resurgence of the disease.