Summary: The much delayed Lockdown in the UK has been managed well by the majority of our population. The strategy of defending the NHS at all costs is substantially a consequence of years of underfunding because of austerity. There are other consequences of the Lockdown that are becoming rapidly more critical. There are substantial numbers whose income has fallen to zero and who simply cannot find the money to eat. These numbers are so great and growing so rapidly that we cannot expect the present Lockdown to be maintained for much longer. Public tolerance is finite. The most abject poverty must be managed by distributing funds as widely as possible as a matter of urgency. Responsibility for managing the pandemic needs to be passed increasingly to the individual to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their family. Businesses should be allowed to reopen provided certain essential arrangements are made for staff, customers and any casual workers involved. We all need to start using facemasks much more widely as the Lockdown is reduced over a small number of weeks.

The Lockdown has been surprisingly well-tolerated in the UK, despite the excellent weather and the Easter weekend. Unfortunately it isn’t working all that well. The number of new cases, hospitalisations and deaths continue to mount. Increasing evidence from Chinese studies suggests that social distancing at 2 m is not enough. Simply breathing the same air as infected individuals and talking with them is most likely one of the main ways the virus propagates. Recent studies suggest that only a low percentage of the UK population have already had Covid-19, probably <15%. Herd immunity is a long way from reality. Hopes that a vaccine might be available in September have been raised by efforts in Oxford but it will take some time thereafter to produce vaccine in the quantities needed to treat a major fraction of the British population. Predictions suggest widespread availability towards the end of 2020 if everything goes well.

The reality is that the UK government ignored what health experts were saying in mid-January about the outbreak in Wuhan, an outbreak that was worsened by the Chinese not wanting to stop celebration of the Chinese New Year in late January when large numbers traditionally travelled to visit their families. The UK government had been in denial about the threat to national security of a pandemic even though the Cygnus exercise in October 2016 had shown that the UK capacity to deal with a pandemic was so poor that it was “too terrifying” to be publicised. Further warnings were given regularly but ignored substantially by the Tory government still obsessed with austerity, something that compromised greatly the capacity of the NHS to deal with the health requirements of the UK anyway. The Tory government, keen to distance itself from anything the EU might do, no matter how it might help the UK, decided not to be involved in the four EU procurement schemes to order a wide range of PPE equipment. When eventually the UK got round to it, most suppliers were already committed to supply elsewhere.

Boris Johnson was happy to rely on British exceptionalism. The pathetic worries of Johnny Foreigner could be ignored. In early February Johnson made it clear that trade and commerce were of much higher priority than coronavirus. In a speech in Greenwich, he stated that the UK would emerge from the exaggerated calls for action, taking the role of a Marvel superhero leaping out to save the planet. To ignore any country that entirely shut down a city with a population greater than that of Greater London counts as one of the great examples of government negligence in modern times. Then to delay by perhaps five weeks now translates  into many thousands of totally unnecessary deaths. It has also caused extraordinary damage to the UK economy and to its people more widely.

Large numbers of the UK workforce found themselves unemployed and with zero income three weeks ago. It has been known for some time that around 40% of UK non-pensioner households have savings that will barely pay for one months worth of household bills. Already the Food Foundation reports a You-Gov poll taken last week that found 1.5 million households have not eaten for a full day as they simply have no money and no access to food. In total 3 million had to skip some meals during the week. Anecdotal reports of increased hospital admissions due to malnutrition are concerning. Mechanisms for funding unemployed people with zero income have barely been established and what there is seems to move on geological timescales.

Economists such as Richard Murphy (https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/) have long advocated simply giving a modest fixed payment to everyone in the Inland Revenue’s PAYE lists with additional mechanisms to give money directly to those not currently part of the formal wage earning/tax paying community. There are a surprising number that would be missed if this was restricted to HMRC lists. It is quite possible some money will go to people who do not need it or do not deserve it. That has to be accepted as a minor detail of little consequence in the big picture as speed is of the essence here.

Widespread starvation risks leading to some civil insurrection. At present the police have a major responsibility for managing the Lockdown. However austerity has cut police numbers to the bone and it is important that the police are free to keep order more widely should the Lockdown start to crumble. Alternative approaches to keeping the epidemic under control need to be developed. Predictably, the government has barely started thinking about that and are a long way from deciding how to manage it. The absolute priority has been to manage the stress on the NHS which was already at its limits because of normal winter pressures before the Covid-19 epidemic got going. The delays in introducing the Lockdown, and the total inability of the government to engage with what had to be done (sourcing ventilators, PPE etc.) have further increased the pressures on the NHS. Even now the scandalous lack of PPE for frontline staff in hospitals and care homes is extraordinary and unforgivable.

We probably have little time to manage this critical situation. At present the Lockdown consists of the government giving highly simplified instructions to the population (wash your hands, stay-at-home, maintain social distancing, minimal journeys outside the home except for exercise, essential shopping and medical). Simply, the government is saying that if we do that then we will minimise the number of Covid-19 cases. We are all being told what to do by the government. Unfortunately this approach means that it is the young who are most unlikely to suffer from the disease and can least afford that their lives been put on hold. They are being forced into Lockdown in order to minimise the risks to the elderly and those less likely to be able to survive the virus.

A radically different approach is to turn the responsibility away from the state to the individual. Saying to everyone that each of us must take responsibility to make sure we do not catch the bug. Those most at risk need to stick rigidly to the most rigourous form of self isolation. Others must take responsibility for themselves and the people they live with. If you want to be as sure as possible you are safe while being at work then you need to wear of proper facemask (not one of those pathetic pieces of paper with two rubber bands, but a proper one that fits over your nose and mouth) and gloves. Once you are back home you need to wash your hands carefully and keep the facemask and gloves separate and secure. If you have vulnerable older people in the household you will have to be particularly careful to make sure you do not bring the bug in to them. Younger people living on their own or with other young people can be much more relaxed but they must be careful to stay at home if they show any of the symptoms, until they have recovered properly.

It is highly likely you won’t be able to buy a proper facemask anyway, but even using a scarf that wraps completely around your mouth and nose will go a long way towards giving you protection. It should be possible to design simple fabric-based masks that will give a good level of protection and can be made available quickly and cheaply.

The new self-tracking contact-tracing infection App announced by Matt Hancock on Sunday will be particularly useful and important to make this work well. He did not say when it might be ready but the phrases he used suggest that it might be three or four weeks before it is actually up and running.

It is essential that most of the British economy is restarted as soon as possible. By ensuring that everyone understands the way individuals are now responsible for doing the right thing to keep themselves and their families safe and well. This means that the present Lockdown must be substantially ended as soon as possible, and by that I mean at most a few weeks. All businesses should be able to reopen with a requirement on them that they look after the health of the employees, anybody working with them and any customers or other visitors who come into their premises. Employers must make sure that employees are provided with face masks and gloves, for example, and given enough space to feel comfortable and safe while at work. Employers would deem themselves to be unable to comply should simply be told to close until they can. All schools should reopen after the May half term in early June. Here teachers will need to ensure that they are adequately protected from infection to any of the children have the disease.

Other restrictions may be necessary. Social distancing will probably need to be maintained as much as we can tolerate. Everyone using public transport should be required to wear a face mask.

It is difficult to have much confidence in the way that this epidemic will pan out. Initially it just looked as if it was a matter of managing a rather nasty disease, significantly more fatal than the seasonal influenza we had become able to manage. Unfortunately what we also have is a substantial economic collapse that will affect individuals disproportionately at the poorest end of the scale and those that have the least resilience to manage the significant downturn in income that so many are experiencing. The government are undoubtedly culpable here to a dreadful degree and they must be held to account.

Summary: The draconian British lockdown rules may have worked but several are arbitrary and unnecessary. Some can easily be adjusted without any increased risk to the rate of infection. That would help to retain the confidence of the general public. Responsibility must be passed increasingly to the individual and away from central authorities. Limits on outside activities are unnecessary provided social distancing rules are obeyed, as they now are largely. We can also move towards easing restrictions on many businesses by requiring much wider use of facemasks provided social distancing rules can be met at all times.

The Covid–19 Lockdown in the UK has been broadly successful. We are all told to stay at home and go out only for necessities such as food, medicine and exercise. Those at higher risk of serious infection are told not even to go out. Unfortunately the route for the UK to exit from lockdown has not been articulated by the UK government. Other countries have established panels to look at what might be done but, as with every other aspect of this pandemic in the UK, we are lagging behind, presumably hoping that something might turn up.

It seems likely that the current lockdown will work and the infection rate decline dramatically. The vast majority of people are following the rules pretty well. Threats to impose even stricter rules are likely to create too much resentment. The “stay at home” advice is much less onerous for those setting these rules who have large houses with multiple rooms and gardens. Those living in cramped conditions with no garden, possibly with shared bathrooms and kitchens and often with several children, already find the rules very onerous.

General acceptance of the rules is essential if we are to get through this terrifying pandemic. Any easing of these restrictions would encourage people to feel progress was being made. Indeed any suggestion that current restrictions are unnecessarily strict will worsen adherence significantly.

We are told that we need to follow “social distancing” by making sure that we are at least 2 m (6 feet) from those outside our household. The choice of 2 m is distinctly arbitrary. It is claimed that this is all that is needed to protect us from coughing and sneezing although I know from personal experience as a hayfever sufferer that I can happily sneeze much further than 2 m. Nobody mentions simply speaking which is one of the best ways of spreading the disease and probably how much of it is actually transmitted. Most people spit to a greater or lesser degree when talking, though they may not realise it. The 2 m limit was chosen once it was decided that using facemasks is pointless. That is clearly preposterous. In clinical settings they are used routinely and not just because they look good on television. It is inconceivable that any facemask use will make things worse. The basic paper ones are probably not much use, but simple fitted ones with an integrated filter must give a significant level of protection to the wearer and their contacts.

If we were encouraged to use facemasks routinely, cross infection between individuals can only be improved. As a minimum it stops an individual from touching their face as we all do repeatedly. Wearing facemasks would give everyone much greater confidence that a 2 m social distance might actually work. However social distancing must be maintained, probably longer than most other restrictions. Wearing a face mask makes it clear the individual is engaging seriously in our shared project to conquer this pandemic.

The current restrictions on visiting parks, beaches, countryside and other recreational areas are important only if there is a risk that the crowds become so great that social distancing cannot be maintained. In that case those parks should indeed be closed. However, pictures of lots of people on Primrose Hill and most other locations over this last weekend showed that on the whole people are well separated from others outside their own family group. Images of police cars chasing family groups sitting well away from others on the grass in the sunshine are just silly and widely recognised as such. If some of the rules that are being imposed are clearly ridiculous we will be less likely to follow the others. Provided social distancing rules are being observed there really isn’t any point in restricting people from being outside.

The same arguments apply to leisure travel. Family groups driving to another location for pleasure are simply not going to increase the risks of increased infection. It’s what you do outside the car both at home and wherever you’re going that matters. The rules must be followed but travelling for pleasure is a ban that is difficult to justify. People need to be discouraged from going to very popular areas such as Snowdonia and the Peak District. However population densities in the more remote parts of the country are very different from those in the Capital. The rules must allow differences where appropriate.

Similarly, restricting exercise to once per day might make sense if you are a middle-aged cabinet minister but if you have a family with energetic children there really is no possible justification provided you and members of your family can maintain the social distance rules properly. Even a short trip out of the house can ease the pressures that so many feel by being trapped at home, young and old. With children there are always problems of them being inclined to play with others and parents must make sure they are safe.

There are, however, many situations where it is simply not possible to follow social distance rules. Particularly in London and the other metropolitan areas public transport is inevitably crowded. This is a situation where much is to be gained and nothing lost by requiring all public transport users to wear a face mask.

Many businesses have been closed simply because they are deemed non-essential. In many cases with appropriate crowd and staff management, social distancing rules can be maintained. Organisations will need to make adjustments to how they operate to make this possible. Only if they can be confident that this has been achieved should they be allowed to open. It is highly likely that social distancing will have to become the norm until we have a vaccine for Covid 19. That is likely to be nearly a year away and we have to find a way of getting our economy back and functioning again. It is essential that we start to move towards achieving that. Every day that goes by more and more damage is being done.

The main responsibility has to be transferred away from government dictat to relying on accepted social pressures on the individual to do the right thing.  Each of us must be engaged in doing everything to maintain the correct social distance. Individuals must also do everything to insist that wherever they are that social distancing must observed by others at all times. It is the only way we will get out of this.

In conclusion there are things that can be done safely, without compromising all that has been achieved already for those who are symptom-free and have been symptom-free for at least seven days:

1.         Remove all restrictions on being out of the house provided social distancing rules can be maintained at all times.

2.         Require everyone to routinely wear facemasks whenever there is a risk of others being closer than this social distance. Public transport use should be required to wear facemasks under all circumstances.

3.         All businesses should be able to operate provided they are able to ensure  social distancing rules can be followed by all customers and all staff. All customers and all staff entering any premises should be required to wear facemasks at all times.

These simple changes will be easy to communicate, should have little negative consequence if any and would allow the public to feel that progress was being made and that they can look forward to a time when normal life might actually resume.

Summary: The importance of achieving zero carbon is accepted to be critical.  One area where we can see how to achieve that is by eliminating fossil fuels from transportation.  Unfortunately the reality is very different from what government and particularly manufacturers are planning.  There is widespread unreality about what has to happen and the timescales and costs of achieving the necessary goals.  The move to electric vehicles, and hybrids must not count, will happen far too slowly with present plans and the emphasis on large heavy SUV type electric vehicles completely misses the point.  The approach to battery charging also needs to change since most people will not have access to charging points in high-density housing areas.  Only by restricting the use of heavy vehicles in urban areas can we hope to move in the right direction.

Electric vehicle sales are booming in the UK.  The government has announced that internal combustion vehicles (ICV’s) will no longer be sold in the UK after 2035 and possibly not after 2032.  Within a few years all vehicles on our roads will be electric.  Job done!  Unfortunately it’s a little bit more complicated.

Let’s start with affordability.  At present the cheapest ICVs cost under £10,000.  The cheapest all electric vehicles cost about £25,000 even with the government grant.  Prices of EV’s are high as manufacturers cater to the demand for SUVs rather than city cars.  Keeping the prices high helps while demand outstrips manufacturing capacity.  An electric car is dramatically simpler than ICV.  You don’t need to have any of an exhaust system, petroleum delivery, internal combustion engine, radiator and cooling system, gearbox, petrol tank etc. You need a battery and you need an electric motor and brakes but not much more.  The 100% premium is clearly good for the manufacturers if not for the public and certainly not if you want to go green.

Headline sales of electric vehicles are dominated by plug-in hybrids, the great majority of which are run solely on petrol or diesel.  Garages report that at their first service most hybrids have their charging cable pack unopened in the boot.  Pure electric vehicles only account for 2.3% of car sales. Hybrids are even less efficient than ICVs being heavier and more expensive to build and worse polluters than their purer ICV cousins.  If you really care about the environment the only choice is pure electric.

The average car in the UK is over 8 years old, and new ICVs are dramatically more reliable than they were.  Indeed a recent Which?  report remarked that the least reliable cars in that report were more reliable than the most reliable cars 10 years earlier.  We must expect current new-car purchases to last long after the 2035 deadline. 

The lack of significant growth in personal income means that the average car age in the UK is likely to increase and by 2035 may well be in excess of 10 years.  This means the average car in 2035 will have been manufactured in 2025 and with present growth rates that will be a very small fraction of the total car sales in the car sales in the UK. With 31.5 million cars (82.5%), 4 million vans (10.5%) and 0.5 million heavy goods vehicles (1.3%) in the UK, by 2035 we must expect the vast majority of vehicles not to be electric and the 120 million tonnes of CO₂ per annum generated now to be only somewhat reduced.

Current EVs are expensive but above all big and heavy.  Basic physics shows that cars driven identically in terms of speed and acceleration etc. have double the energy consumption of a vehicle half that wait, irrespective of the fuel, petrol or electric.  Great strides have been made in the efficiency of ICV’s in recent years but that has now been largely lost by the move towards bigger and heavier vehicles.  Many British villages, towns and cities with their origins in the Middle Ages have narrow streets made narrower by car parking.  The move to SUVs is difficult to justify for the vast majority of users and causes increased congestion, increased pollution including from tyre wear and tear and reduced parking space because of their size.  Again, if you really care about the environment, the only choice is smaller, lighter cars and always pure electric, not the great electric juggernauts favoured by the relatively wealthy who can afford them.

Anyone thinking about going electric will worry about battery charging.  If you are relatively wealthy or live out-of-town then you are much more likely to have a garage or at least a driveway to park your car and charge it.  A great number of British houses however are terraced or multi-storey flats.  Reserved parking for your car is out of the question.  If you can’t park near a charger you’re done for.  Despite the hype about high-speed charging, most vehicles need to be charged for a time comparable with the time they are driven between charges.  Five minutes filling up your ICV now makes an EV much less appealing.  Fast charging points are expensive, and the risk of running out of power away from home is a serious disincentive if you drive a good distance at all regularly.

One interesting approach which does not appear to have been taken seriously by manufacturers is designing an electric vehicle to have easily replaceable batteries.  Garages could offer pre-charged batteries which could be slotted in in just a few minutes with the right design of car.  The batteries are heavy, up to half a ton, and the cost to the motorist would be a combination of the electric charge plus a daily rental rate for the battery.  Batteries should last at least 10 years and cost several thousand pounds each, depending on their size.  Cars with rapid-replacement batteries could use smaller ones if that was all that was needed and that was all that was available.  Such an arrangement would allow a car to have an effective recharge time of only a few minutes.  This would also provide a  role for garages otherwise  facing redundancy as the 2035-2050 window  approaches.  The nearest to this ideal was Renault who offered their Zoe vehicle with a battery rental, but that approach has been removed at the end of 2019.  The Zoe did not have a rapid exchange battery design but the principle was there.

Going green properly  will only really get going once manufacturers reduce the price of their vehicles,  and concentrate on smaller lighter vehicles. They must  become dramatically easier to recharge, probably by having rapid replacement batteries supported by garages.  In the meantime we have to appreciate that progress is currently very slow and not all of it moving in the right direction.  Hybrids need to be discouraged now as do large and heavy vehicles of all sorts.  Only then can we honestly hope to reduce our energy demands for personal transport.