We cannot be sure when the coronavirus crisis will end – but we must do what we can to get there quicker

Editorial: It is understandable to yearn for certainty, but one thing is clear – the more people stay home, the more lives will be saved

Michael Gove has warned that the current lockdown could last a ‘significant’ period of time (Getty)

At times of personal and national crisis people understandably yearn for certainty, for answers and clear messages. The government has undoubtedly made its mistakes around coronavirus, but on one central question no one can expect precision – when will the crisis be over?

That is why the prime minister, Boris Johnson, is sending a letter to every home in the country, where he “levels” with the British people and warns that things will get worse rather than better. It is also why Michael Gove cautions that the present partial lockdown may last for a “significant” – but undefined – time.

As for when this crisis will be over, “over” is itself an uncertain concept. The peak seems likely to arrive over the next few weeks, with London very much on the front line. After that, there will still be many more people who succumb to Covid-19, and some will die.

However, the daily tolls will gradually decline, more people will recover (some only having experienced mild, if any, symptoms) and acquire resistance, and herd immunity will start to be built up.

The NHS will also be better able to manage the flow of admissions. It may be that a second wave arrives later in the year, with us having suppressed the virus now; and a vaccine may be developed sometime in the next year or so. All the time new treatments to alleviate the symptoms will be tried. Mass testing will also become a crucial factor in winning this particular war.

Such developments cannot be precisely timed or predicted. What we do know as a matter of logic and science is that the less people have contact with one another and the more carefully they wash their hands, the slower the spread of the coronavirus will be. Those messages seem to be getting across now, backed by stiffer penalties and a stronger communications campaign. The more people stay home, the more lives will be saved.

Such things are in the hands of the public themselves – to save their own lives as well as those of the most frail and vulnerable. What has been in the hands of Mr Johnson and his colleagues is the decision not to take part in the EU ventilator procurement programme – which may have fatally compromised the effort to properly equip the wards. Mr Gove was unable to give a full account for the “communications confusion” as he calls it. There must now be a forensic examination of the emails supposedly missed: it is a vital question and more grieving families will deserve answers.

Even before this crisis is over, there are serious, legitimate questions to ask about preparedness, about protective equipment, about whether the country was locked down too late, about why other countries were able to test their populations, and so on.

The nature of the coronavirus outbreak could never be foreseen. But after Sars and Mers it was always likely that another virus attacking the human respiratory system would emerge sooner or later. In due course an independent inquiry will need to examine what was inevitable, what was done well, and what was done badly, because we can also be certain that potentially deadly viruses are always evolving – and we need to be as ready as we can possibly can be for when they show up.