The release of the Department of Health’s evidence which informed their decisions regarding the “circuit breaker” caused a furore, with many sectors feeling unduly punished. Analysis showed that in some cases the forced closure of businesses and impact livelihoods would have only a minimal impact on the so-called ‘R’ rate, which measures the rate of transmission of COVID-19.
The Department’s paper outlined a basket of potential measures, including closing down churches and schools. When hospitality and close-contact services found themselves plucked out of that basket there was anger, as many saw their sector being forced to cease trading, effectively to pay the price for the failure by wider society to adapt behaviour to keep the rate of transmission down.
Given the huge investment and efforts these sectors have made to minimise risk, the contents of the paper were a bitter pill to swallow. The Department set its objective of reducing the ‘R’ rate from around 1.5 to around 1. In order to achieve this 0.5 reduction they looked at various sectors that could contribute. Their evidence estimated that close-contact services would only reduce ‘R’ by 0.05, ie 10% of their target, while the closure of hospitality would reduce it by 0.1 – 0.2 which, if we take the upper estimate, would achieve 40% of the Executive’s target. I certainly don’t envy the position of the Executive. It is often said that in positions of authority all the easy decisions are made for you; it is only the difficult ones which reach your desk. However, a more fulsome account of the economic costs of these decisions may enable better decision making.
Where the Executive does deserve criticism is in its failure to learn from earlier in the year and to plan accordingly, and in its choreography. It should have announced clear guidance and support at the same time as announcing the restrictions. The threat of a ‘second wave’ has been discussed ad nauseam for months, with the likelihood of restrictions easily foreseen. Indeed, FSB wrote to all Ministers last month to caution about exactly this scenario, stressing the need for careful language that wouldn’t simply class every restriction as a “lockdown” and, importantly, highlighting the need for well-planned supports and good communications. Despite this, clarity on who could still trade was not provided until after the restrictions come into force, which caused businesses to make decisions amidst a cloud of uncertainty, with damaging effects. While Ministers have since moved swiftly to implement support packages after the restrictions came into force, these schemes could and should have been pre-designed, so affected businesses would know what they might expect, and when, and funding could reach their bank accounts as early as possible in the restricted period.
While we can argue over what has gone before, we now need to focus minds on what lies ahead and what we can do to influence it. Regardless of whatever walk of life we are from, we should adjust our behaviours and challenge others to do the same. In the initial stages of the pandemic it was our combined efforts of limiting human contact with those outside our household that meant the worst case scenarios didn’t come to pass. At their root the current restrictions are designed to reduce close human contact; but if each of us takes responsibility for our own steps to protect ourselves and others, we remove the need for mandatory restrictions and the associated economic damage.
In the poem ‘The Road Not Taken’ by Robert Frost, he envisages two divergent roads and regrets that he has to choose one. In around two weeks the Executive will be faced with choosing one road from the three-pronged fork. The three divergent roads are the extension of ‘the circuit breaker’, which will prolong the economic damage; an even more draconian actual ‘lockdown’, or an easing of restrictions which would take us back to the pre-circuit breaker ‘new normal’. While none of these roads will take us quickly back to a world without Covid, it is clear which is the most advantageous. But they must not wait until they have made the decision before they plan, model and prepare for the supports that will be required if they choose either of the first two. Instead, they should draw on all the hard-won experience gained since March to make sure that whatever decision they reach is as effective as possible, whilst doing the minimum damage.
That said, it is not only the Executive that has a choice to make that will affect our future. As a society we must also choose which road we take. Just as Frost could not take both, we cannot expect to stroll down the road of ignoring public health guidance and regulations whilst at the same time wishing we could also travel towards relaxed restrictions and a more normalised situation. The economy belongs to us all and we must all play our part to protect it. At the end of this restricted period let us not look back with anguish at the ‘road not taken’.