COVID-19: THE FIREBREAK OPTION

PM Johnson announced a second national lockdown on Saturday.  Four weeks is too long, especially if might be extended.

So what's the alternative?

KEEPING THE ECONOMY AND SCHOOLS OPEN

The first thing to realise is that the best way of keeping the economy, schools and universities open is to drive infections down to very low levels.  Then the risk of infection would be low enough not to be significant by comparison to other daily risks, and the NHS could easily cope.  All other COVID-related problems solved too.

That's if we can get infection rates across the country down to #NearZero and keep them there.  Not easy, but it is possible, as discussed below.

HOW ABOUT SHIELDING THE VULNERABLE, AND LETTING EVERYONE ELSE GET ON WITH LIFE?

Conversely letting the virus run rampant, even with the more vulnerable shielded, would result in huge numbers of younger people suffering from LongCOVID.

If do shield the vulnerable, the economy, schools and other organisations would struggle to function without them.  

Add to that the timescales to get to Herd Immunity that are months if not years at any realistic infection rate, and the Great Barrington Debacle, or anything like it, is a non-starter.  Even before considering the harsh effects on the people having to shield themselves long term.  Such ideas are absolute nonsense.

Alternatively the Swedish approach arguably suited Sweden.  There are attarctions, but it wouldn't work in the UK for several reasons.

SO HOW CAN WE GET INFECTION RATES DOWN TO VERY LOW LEVELS?

Let's leverage the life cycle of the virus:

• People display symptoms typically within 5 days, in the range 2-17 days

• People are infectious before they display symptoms, or even if they remain asymptomatic.  They are likely to infect members of their household within a few days

As a result, if someone is infected with COVID-19, they are expected to Self-isolate for 10 days from symptoms but continue to self-isolate in various situations set out here.

So in theory the virus would be eliminated in a country if:

• Everybody self-isolates simultaneously

• Borders are closed to visitors

• Borders are closed to risky goods, such as chilled foods which could have been source of the first re-infection in New Zealand
  

 But real-life wouldn't allow that:

• Vital services such as hospitals would need to continue, resulting in people having to leave home to get to work, unless they can live there
• All the utility businesses would need to keep operating, plus some industries like steel foundries 
• Sealing borders entirely would be impossible 

Nonetheless within three weeks an Enhanced FireBreak would likely have reduced infection rates to very low levels, letting much of life get back to near-normal.  Comparing that idea to the lockdown currently in Wales:

You may well think that an Enhanced FireBreak is impractical.  Indeed each measure would need review.  But the point is that the sharper the FireBreak, the lower the infection rates across the country, and the more that can re-open when the FireBreak finishes.

Best done for the whole British Isles so there are no borders, with or without the island of Ireland.

 

 

HOW LONG SHOULD A FIREBREAK BE?

Lockdowns come at cost to the economy, livelihoods and mental health.  That's why it is important to keep a FireBreak length to an absolute minimum.  As discussed above, the virus lifecycle suggests ideally 21 days, but 17 days over three weekends like Wales has done is an alternative.  Four weeks is too long.

With the economy reopening, a FireBreak should be regarded as an investment, not just a cost.

This is especially relevant to schools and universities.  The number currently shut, sending pupils home or ceasing to operate fully is far too high.  A short, sharp FireBreak will work best with educational institutions closed, so they can re-open in a far happier way.

The duration must be fixed so there's the carrot for compliance of getting more of the economy re-opened at the end of it.  Wales has the right idea.

BUT HOW TO KEEP INFECTION RATES DOWN?

Keeping infection rates down is not easy.

New Zealand has proved that even the harshest visitor policy lets infection into the country.  Importation of chilled foods are also a potential risk.

In the UK, new rapid testing and sniffer dogs should help to reduce the cases of infection getting into the country, putting anybody testing negative into an isolation facility.

But that won't happen overnight, so in the meantime we have to assume that infections will get in.  Also a FireBreak wouldn't be perfect.

So the objective is to pounce on any outbreaks:

• Test/Trace/Isolate will work far better at lower infection rates, whether re-organised or not
  
• Indeed there would then be testing capacity to test everyone in the vicinity of an outbreak, with swabbing wheeled in
  

Further improvements in rapid, cheap testing will make this easier.  In the longer term:

• We all ought to be self-screening daily
• Venues should be screening entrants, which can start sooner
  

CYCLICAL FIREBREAKS

Indeed we should assume that infections would rise to a level that, for example, starts to disrupt education.  Then a further FireBreak would be needed.

The sharper the first FireBreak, the lower the infections rates around the country, and the longer they would take to reach a point another would be needed.

By next Spring:

• There is hope for the wide distribution of a safe and reliable vaccine.  Though this cannot be guaranteed.
• The weather will be improving, allowing more activity to be outdoors
• Drug treatments like dexamethasone help treatment in hospital.  Hopefully there will also be cheap drugs available to either prevent or deal with the early stages of infection, for mass use at home.  But again not guaranteed because of the long timescales required for clinical trials, especially for safety before widespread deployment
  

In the meantime we need to tackle the virus.  This is likely to need further FireBreaks around the time of each half-term in February and May to minimise disruption to schools.  Indicatively by comparison to the three-tier system:

 

CHRISTMAS 2020

Much is being said about whether we can enjoy Christmas as usual.  Maybe not as 'normal', but a FireBreak would be far more likely to make Christmas arrangements easier than the proposed lockdown.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

The extention of the Furlough scheme for employees is welcome, but as yet no extra support announced for employers or the self-employed.  This is essential whether FireBreak or Lockdown.

The economy would be expected to improve dramatically after a FireBreak, benefiting the Treasury with extra taxes received and lower social security paid. Extra financial support for the FireBreak would be an investment, not just a cost.

THE GOVERNMENT LOCKDOWN

In the first lockdown, when schools were closed, the daily Confirmed New Cases  dropped by five sixths from the peak reached a few days after the lockdown started.

Too often people talk about "getting R below 1".  It must be "getting R well below 1", as this diagram by Professor Christina Pagel included in last Friday's Independent SAGE presentation shows:

A half-hearted lockdown with R just below 1, as the Government is proposing, will not have enough of an effect to be worthwhile in the timescale proposed.  So four weeks is too long but also too short!  An alternative is needed.

A further look at the options, including how Wales is getting on with its FireBreak, is here.

IN CONCLUSION

The alternative of a short, sharp FireBreak of 17-21 days is far preferable to the Government's proposed half-hearted four-week Lockdown:

• Shorter closures
• Getting infection rates far lower
• Letting more of economy re-open
• Letting schools and higher education re-open in confidence 
• Saving Christmas
  

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I may not be a University professor, but my scientific and business experience mean I can take a far broader yet in-depth view.   I'm able to take a unique 360 degree view of the COVID-19 situation, having a background in science, business processes, finance and much else besides:

• For the last 40 years I have been solving problems and implementing solutions for Board level personnel in FTSE, AIM, private and start-up businesses.  Plus the UK subsidiaries of multinationals such as Sony and Alcatel, including doubling profits of their UK business

• That work is leveraging technical, financial, systems, commercial and people expertise and understanding. Often for biotech and other hi-tech businesses.

• This is based on being:
• Achiever of top Oxbridge degree in sciences, including cells, genetics, chemistry and spectroscopy
  
• The Thames Valley overall first prizewinner in final ICAEW examinations, covering all the various financial and management subjects
  
• Member of Institute of Management Consultants

The tough problems require taking an all-angles view of the situation, and all the available evidence, before proposing a solution.  I only ever propose a solution that I would be happy to implement.  I have been studying COVID-19 and the responses internationally for more than six months now.

In that sense, I regard how best to tackle COVID-19 as just another problem.  Not as tricky as some I have solved, which had stumped other CAs or the directors thought the problem was insoluble.

That's not to say how best to tackle COVID-19 is easy.  There is no painless  solution.  But balancing lives, livelihoods and the economy to allow education, the health system and business to flourish, whilst minimising the net cost to the Treasury, does have a far better solution than the UK government has proposed, as outlined above.