Six problems with the rule of six to tackle coronavirus spread

Editorial: The government was right to act to restrict social mixing but needs to fix the flaws in the policy

There are six problem’s with the government’s new ‘rule of six’ ( )

A brief September heatwave would usually be welcomed but the weather forecast for the next week has prompted concerns about some of the details of the government’s latest policy,  the “rule of six”, to contain the coronavirus. 

John Apter, of the Police Federation of England and Wales, has warned that there is a risk that people will treat this weekend as a “party weekend” before the new law comes into force on Monday.  

This raises the first of six problems with the rule of six. Why, given the urgency of prompt action, did the new rules not come into effect immediately, when the prime minister announced them on Wednesday?  

The second problem is that, in its attempt to simplify the message, the government may have created unintended and undesirable effects. Instead of continuing to allow larger gatherings of up to 30 people outside, where the risk of transmission is low, ministers have decided to set the limit at six people indoors and out. This gives people who want to break the rules an incentive to gather indoors, rather than outside where the rules are more likely to be enforced. England should have copied Wales in this respect.  

The third problem is a related question of enforcement. There is probably not much that can be done to avoid encouraging people to report on other people’s behaviour, but it risks a souring of the social mood. The half-baked idea of volunteer marshals is equally unlikely to do much for cooperation and solidarity. 

Fourth, it would probably have made more sense to exclude children under the age of 12 from the rule, as the Scottish government has done. Again, the drive for simplicity – which is indeed a good principle of communications – has unintended consequences; in this case of being unfair to larger families.  

Problem five is the failure of the government to get a grip on testing. If people cannot get tests locally and quickly, their confidence in the government’s ability to control the virus will be undermined, and their willingness to observe the new rules to restrict mixing will be weakened. Huge increases in testing capacity have been claimed, and yet there are still many people who face inexplicable problems in trying to use it.  

Problem six is the lack of financial support for people who do the responsible thing and isolate. There are understandable problems of potential fraud and the intrusive checks required to avoid it, but it is shortsighted not to do more to support those on low incomes asked to make a sacrifice for the common good.  

Six problems with the rule of six. While the government was right to respond to the increase in infections – which is real, and not simply a result of more tests – and the policy to restrict social mixing is broadly proportionate and fair, ministers ought to rectify the defects of their policy. That is how they will maximise public confidence in the restrictions needed to control the virus, rather than airy talk of future “moonshot” miracle solutions.