Delay may simply push the peak of coronavirus to next winter

Editorial: Paradoxically, if non-infected people decide to self-isolate now, they may only succeed in delaying the worst point of the outbreak too far back in the year

Johnson holds a press conference addressing the government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak (Getty)

“Squash that sombrero” was Boris Johnson’s typically colourful summary of the best way to deal with the coronavirus outbreak, referring to the graphic showing the shape of the coronavirus cases expected in the coming months.

At his press conference, flanked again by his senior medical and scientific advisers, the prime minister did not venture much further into the field of epidemiology, which was probably just as well. He did, though, take the opportunity to “level” with the British people, with the warning that “loved ones” will be lost, taken before their time. It was the most sombre reckoning to take place in Downing Street in many years; and it will not be the last. The chief scientific adviser tells us that the peak rate of Covid-19 cases will arrive in about 10 to 14 weeks’ time – well into the summer months.

Contrary to some of the population, the government, guided by the science, is not, after all, going to implement draconian measures as we enter the “delay” phase of the action plan. The new announcements relating to England were relatively modest, compared to the “lockdowns” in China and Italy, the Scottish government’s ban on gatherings of more than 500 people, and Ireland’s decision to close its schools until the end of March, for example. International school trips are off, as are cruises, and people with the slightest hints of coronavirus symptoms are asked to self-isolate for a week. Extra care should be taken when meeting elderly people. That, though, is about it.

The theory seems to be that acting too radically, too quickly would be counterproductive. People might be unable or unwilling to limit their social interactions for as long as that would entail – many months – and would end up circulating at precisely the wrong time. Logically, too, there is a point to this caution. There is no point, after all, in everyone staying at home and trying to slow the rate of infection when the rate of infection is still quite small. The most effective moment to slow the rate of infection and delay the peak is when it starts to accelerate markedly, and that point has not yet been reached. The officials candidly want the population to be infected, as is inevitable, because it will build up a critical mass of resistance to the coronavirus – and timing is crucial.

This, though, clashes with the “common sense” of some who may be naturally inclined to dismiss the experts in any case, such is the spirit of our age. It seems obvious, after all, that major sporting events should be cancelled, because so many people are thrown together; the experts disagree, because there is more chance of transmission at home or in a pub than in a stadium. Schools, too, are not a major factor at the moment in the spread of coronavirus, so again there is little point in closing them. Screening at airports and suspending air travel is relatively ineffective, despite President Trump’s instinct to the contrary. In all of these calculations, there is a balance to be struck between the demands of epidemiology, of the economy, of people’s social lives, and the sheer impracticality of certain courses of action.

The right measures, then, will be taken at the right time. But even if the government’s strategy is the right one, there are flaws in it. Paradoxically, if non-infected people decide to self-isolate now, and employers encourage their perfectly healthy staff to work from home, they may only succeed in pushing the peak rates too far back in the year, towards next winter. The actions of individuals prepared to defy the official advice may end up undermining the government’s action plan and making the crisis worse than it would otherwise be. Britain is not going to become a kingdom of hermits; no one will be able to remain in solitary confinement for a year or more, and even if they did, when they emerged they would not have had the opportunity to build up the immunity that the rest of the population will have done so through fighting the infection and eventual recovery.

There is also a huge job of public education, of explaining how and why slowing the spread of the disease is so crucial – why “squashing the sombrero” is so crucial. There is a very real danger that a combination of public scepticism and misunderstanding will conspire to make any action plan largely irrelevant. Perhaps the moment has come for the experts to make some allowance for the vagaries of human nature in their planning.