Standing out from the COVID-19 crowd

As we approach the summer, the practicalities of relaxing the lock-down measures will take shape in our minds. And whereas in the first instance, the only way to manage the total lock-down was by including the entire nation, it would appear that as things are relaxed, different localised approaches will be necessary. Clearly, in some countryside areas the risks are much less than in heavily populated areas. The risks in small schools will be less than in large schools. And if there are areas that have achieved ‘herd immunity’ on some scale, they will face less risk than areas where the pandemic has not yet had a significant impact.

So, while a ‘one size fits all’ solution might work because it is clear to explain to a confused public, it falls short of addressing the complexities on the ground. Defining a detailed set of rules, with in-built flexibility to deal with the various scenarios doesn’t appear to be achievable, particularly when during the Spring the advice provided by the Government changed regularly. 

Clearly our Government intends to limit the impact of the pandemic on the economy as much as possible: Arguably It delayed the introduction of the lock-down measures to the last minute, and will seek to introduce rule relaxation as early as possible. The challenge lies in balancing the relaxation of the rules with the ability of the N.H.S. to cope.

Somewhere I imagine there are Civil Servants tasked with estimating the cost to the economy of various actions, versus the estimated increase in deaths of each option. In this way, if any relaxation action is taken, there is literally a value put on a life. If the pandemic is regional, and say, runs its course in London before other areas of the country, then any rule relaxation is going to have a much smaller impact on London than on other more rural (or more Northern) areas. If then, such relaxation actions are taken, is a London life worth more, less, or the same than a life, say in North Yorkshire. Similarly, if the pandemic is rife in Care Homes but under control elsewhere, do we value the lives of the infirm and disabled less than the fit and able-bodied? I guess we shall see in the fullness of time.

As people begin to mix with each other more in shops, streets, learning institutions, on public transport, or at work, we will see different groups of people, with different risks coming together.

There are some people who are ‘high risk’. Age is a factor, but only one. Of greater importance is underlying health. Those people who are likely to have complications if they get the virus need ongoing increased protection. This is perhaps 2% of our population, or more if we include the obese.

Then there are the rest of us who have not knowingly had the virus already: This is, of course, the vast majority. Some of us will have contracted the virus, and recovered, apparently with no obvious symptoms. The rest will be likely to recover if we contract the virus, although of course some will get very sick.

Finally, there are some people who have had the virus already. Either they have been tested and have recovered, or they have had all the symptoms and recovered.  With any coronavirus we would expect them to have built up antibodies to be effectively immune – at least until the virus mutates. In an ideal world we would have a trustworthy antibody test freely available, so that we could confidently identify these people. As isn’t an ideal world, we can’t confidently identify them. But in the vast majority of cases they can identify themselves and be right.

A perfect set of rules for self-isolation would, as a minimum, include the local geography, type of activity, and the risk profile of the individual. And that’s why we can’t expect to see a perfect set of rules. Inevitably, the solution will rely, to some degree, on common sense risk analysis and in the application of broad rules in particular scenarios.

People who consider themselves to be less at risk in undertaking a particular activity, because clearly, by any sensible measure, they are less at risk, will need to be allowed to announce themselves to be less at risk, and therefore be trusted to interpret the rules accordingly. People who are not at risk of catching the virus don’t need to self-isolate, and probably need to be encouraged to socially mingle much more.

As time goes on, we hope we will have an accurate antibody test, and beyond that a vaccination. Until then we will need to trust the individuals.

And yes, there will be some idiots who break the rules, but they are probably already breaking the rules so you can never legislate from them without a police state.

Since February I’ve been mulling over how those ‘safe’ people could identify themselves easily – a way in which you could see them walking down the street, or on a bus, and you knew at a distance that you didn’t need to keep 2 metres away. Perhaps they are postman, delivery men, social workers, shop assistants – people who deal with customers regularly and don’t wear P.P.E. It would be great if you could see them coming, because they were wearing some kind of symbol that clearly identified them. I was reminded as a youth of a bright yellow “I’m one in a million” badge we wore, but considered this too small. What I needed was something more like a firefighter’s helmet.

I settled on a beanie hat, bright yellow, with a clear message ‘I’ve Had It!’ Of course, the double-meaning adds a little joke, in the hope that this will make the beanie more pleasing to wear: It’s a light-hearted but practical response to a serious issue.

I don’t know if it will catch on, but I hope it will, and as a further incentive to get people to spend real money on this, I’ve decided to give a portion of the profit - at least 50% - to charities supporting key workers.

So I’d really like you to either purchase a beanie if you are in the U.K., or spread the word by sharing this post, so that we can help people stay safe, stay alert, and support key workers in the future.

Thanks ever so much,

Chris