Easing the coronavirus lockdown is a difficult task which the government is doing badly

The prime minister’s announcement of the lockdown to the nation in March was sudden and clear. It was always going to be hard for his announcement of the first steps out of the constraint to match that clarity. In his Sunday evening televised address, he did at least achieve one aim of beginning to change government advice, and the accompanying 50-page paper, published a day later, usefully set out the thinking. That said, his pre-recorded statement also created confusion –  which was only compounded by Dominic Raab, his effective deputy, the morning after.

The government has managed to set out its aims

The televised address on Sunday has been widely criticised, but it achieved some of the government’s aims.

• The prime minister’s remarks began to shift the focus on how to get back to work, reflecting the government’s concern about the economy and the unsustainable cost of the furlough scheme.
• His speech clearly kept the emphasis on caution. He said that any easing was conditional on containing the virus’s spread. The changes focussed on those that would increase wellbeing without much risk – such as spending more time outside – rather than those that might matter hugely to people’s fortunes but where the risk is large or unknown, such as reopening schools.
• It attempted to set out dates for future easing of restrictions on schools, hospitality and travel, while emphasising that these had to be conditional.
• It was a direct message from the prime minister to British people. While some MPs criticised him for not making a statement to parliament, this was one message better delivered straight from him.
• The report made clear that the government was weighing many factors together in its decisions: health (including deaths caused by diversion of attention to Covid-19, and by poverty and ill-health); the economic impact, and “social effects” including harm to mental health as well as fairness, and wanting to keep measures proportionate to the risk of disease. While impossible to quantify these different factors, the statement does pull together all the various relevant concerns.

But the government’s messaging was muddled

The clarity of the prime minister’s statement was very poor, only partly salvaged by the report.

• “Stay alert” was widely criticised as meaningless – and immediately rejected by the devolved nations, who retained “Stay home” as their slogan.
• There was much reporting of the supposed contents in advance, raising expectations of a big loosening but causing confusion when reported elements did not appear.
• The 50-page statement came almost 24 hours later with a few more practical details – why not at the same time?
• The most important measures – on going back to work, and on social distancing – were the most muddled in presentation by ministers.
• The speech gave confusing messages about who you can meet and where. Dominic Raab said that you could meet two people – your parents, for instance – at the same time in the park if they were two metres away. The government corrected Raab two hours later to say that you could meet one person not from your own household at two metres distance, but not two at the same time.

It is not clear who should go back to work –  or how they should get there

Getting people back to work was the message at the heart of the prime minister’s statement. It was also the message that gave least sign of being thought through.

• It appeared that at 7pm on Sunday night, the prime minister was urging people to go back to work “now” – or the very next morning.
• Ministers including Dominic Raab on the Today programme on Monday morning then said the encouragement to go back to work applied from Wednesday (as did the report, published on Monday).
• That was combined with a direction to avoid public transport if possible. But directions to public transport about the services to put on were unclear – and about how to make social distancing possible, to protect key workers as well as transport workers.
• The government report referred to recommendations to employers about creating a “Covid-secure” workplace to be published later in the week – date unspecified. Employers’ groups said this did not give enough time, nor was the direction to put these into practice “as soon as practicable” clear on the legal liability for safety; insurers agreed.
• Raab declined to say on Monday morning whether workers had a right to walk out if they felt unsafe, in response to unions’ demands.
• Of all the groups recommended to go back to work now because they could not work at home – such as construction workers – scientists in labs were the main professional class. Raab appeared to have no answer to the growing row over whether the government is essentially recommending that white collar workers stay safely at home while urging those in generally less skilled lines of work to expose themselves to greater risk by going to work.
• Boris Johnson did not mention masks – but Sadiq Khan, mayor of London, then urged people to use them on public transport from Monday.  The government’s published advice on Monday said they would be recommended for use from Wednesday in enclosed places and public transport.

The government’s use of data is questionable

• The government is putting great weight on “R” – the rate of transmission. Boris Johnson said this was estimated between 0.5 and 0.9. However, in the absence of extensive national testing, these figures can only be the broadest estimates and possibly very misleading, statisticians have said. Yet the government is presenting the management of R as the linchpin of its strategy.
• The new 1-to-5 Covid Alert Scale, coloured from red at the top to green at the bottom, is misleading. Critics have charged that it is essentially a red-amber-green code with two extra zones that are useful for government relations: an upper (“bad”) zone that we are not in (therefore reassuring), and a bottom one that we are also not in (therefore avoiding complacency).

Risk of confusion between guidance and law

There has throughout the lockdown been a danger of confusion between what is illegal and what is merely discouraged by guidance. This week’s changes may compound that.

• The slight relaxation on social distancing does not require a change in the law because the law had not banned these activities specifically (such as exercising more than once a day or sunbathing). 
• Future changes may affect the law – say if hairdressers, which were forced to close, then can open again.  

As the experience of other countries is showing, there is no single clear plan for lifting a lockdown. Relaxation of constraints even after a successful first onslaught against the virus may still leave the incidence rising sharply again. But public consent will continue to be essential to be able to control the spread. That in turn depends on clarity of messaging. While the government report was considerably clearer than the prime minister’s statement, the two together, plus the comments of other ministers, will have left too many people with justifiable confusion, and with the sense that the government is not just struggling to explain its plan – it is struggling to form one at all.