Pubs in Scotland are closed again, but are coronavirus restrictions even working?

Editorial: Infection rates have been rising broadly everywhere, including places in lockdown. So why is tightening restrictions the answer when it hasn’t worked so far?

Nicola Sturgeon setting out new rules for pubs in Scotland (BBC News)

If anyone were in any doubt as to the sheer might of coronavirus they have only to reflect on the fact that, for the second time in six months, it has made it impossible to get a drink inside a pub in large parts of Scotland.  

The new near-lockdown restrictions announced by the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, which vary in severity from place to place, are a measure of just how seriously the authorities in Scotland take the rapid escalation in infections and hospitalisations. That treatments and clinical protocols have improved to blunt the ultimate effects on the death rate is of some comfort, but a heavy second wave of Covid-19 could still place huge strains on the NHS and on the economy, and take many more loved ones before their time.  

The north of England and other parts of the country seem set to follow Glasgow and much of the central belt into more restrictions on indoor private socialising, whether at home or going out. From Bolton to Belfast and Llantrisant to Liverpool, the hospitality trade is going to be subject to another sharp squeeze – but so will friends and families who simply want to visit one another.  

The question is whether such renewed restrictions would even work in public health terms, leaving aside any economic factors. It is well observed that the infection rates have been rising broadly everywhere, but including places where restrictions are already being tightened. Some are querying why the answer seems to be tightening restrictions, when that has not worked so far.  

It is not as illogical a question as it seems. Of course, in theoretical terms, the more social contact is blocked the slower a virus will spread. So if social contact is further deterred, beyond the “rule of six”, say, then the spread of Covid-19 should slow: such is the nature of a pandemic in epidemiological terms.

In practice, though, it is also a matter of behavioural science, or common sense. Stricter rules are not necessarily going to be adhered to more religiously, and in fact the reverse may happen. Ratcheting up the fines, snooping and encouraging the police to be more proactive can only partially compensate, if at all, for a more widespread culture of cheating the rules. If the people of Manchester or Glasgow or, perhaps soon, London, want to meet in a flat and finish off some cans of beer there is, in reality, very little the authorities can do about it. A freedom-loving people can only be policed by consent, and that consent is slowly evaporating. This is not North Korea.

However, it is also the case that some rules are better designed than others, and in that respect the national 10pm bar and restaurant curfew seems an extreme way to have combined the worst of all worlds. It has disproportionately reduced the takings of the hospitality trade, while yielding no apparent benefit in social distancing. On the contrary, it has merely encouraged drunken hobnobbing in the streets and on crowded public transport. It is counterproductive and gives the law a bad name. It cannot be worth persevering with. But the problems are sadly wider than that.  

There must be smarter ways of doing things, and, though more doubtfully, better ways the government can restore public confidence and understanding of the terrible risks so many are taking with their lives and the lives of others. If not, then the country will simply drift into the kind of “herd immunity” strategy that is being talked about again. This involves allowing younger people less at risk of death to resume normal lives, while sheltering the over-50s and other vulnerable groups. This was the approach rejected by the experts in the spring because of the potential death toll and burden on the NHS. Now it may be taking place on the ground quietly and slowly; being implemented by individuals across the country with no reference to Sage or any other advice.

Businesses may open where they should not just because the alternative is personal financial ruin, as the furlough scheme and other state support is wound up. British cities will witness an epidemic of lock-ins and prohibition-era style speakeasies.  

The Johnson government, through its own incompetence, poor communications and hypocrisy, such as in the Cummings affair, is losing control of the people. In large cities in particular, and among the young, the official messages are not getting through, they are not well understood and they are not respected. The consequences are all too predictable and all too grim.