WHEN any new set of circumstances arises, it creates confusion. If the rules that govern the situation are unknown, and must be deduced, constructed and applied on the hoof, mistakes, contradictions and reversals are inevitable.
Though it is the role of mainstream media to identify and examine them, and in the nature of social media wildly to exaggerate them, the public has been tolerant in accepting that uncertainty. While many basic things remained unknown, that was the correct response.
As the global progress of the disease continues, it has become clear that the correlation between outcomes, external factors – demographics, geography, climate and so on – and policy is not straightforward.
A few countries, such as New Zealand, which may have exceptional circumstantial advantages, have so far had great success. Others have done badly while adopting similar policies to their luckier neighbours. Over time, there often seems to have been a convergence of outcomes, even when the policies adopted were very different.
All the UK governments avowedly made their decisions on expert advice (their differences were trivial, and largely based on genuinely local circumstances). Since that advice often changed with the data, it is understandable that the rules changed, too. Diligently “following the science” is no guarantee of success when science is developing – think of the fact that the WHO was disparaging the use of masks only six months ago.
Now, however, more clarity and consistency is possible, and for practical purposes vital. The admirable aims of varying rules to ensuring NHS provision was best prepared and distributed, adapting to local requirements and trying to be flexible to preserve services and businesses may have been reasonable before.
But now, at a dangerous point in a second wave, with understandable public fatigue, and at a season when transmission is almost bound to increase, the plethora of national and regional tier structures has become an impediment, rather than a nimble response to prevailing local conditions.
It has led to absurdities in places like Hay-on-Wye, on the border of Herefordshire, moving down into England’s tier one, and Wales, all of which is aggressively going into lockdown. Northern Ireland’s need to do the same is declared urgent, but doesn’t come in until Boxing Day. Two-thirds of both Scotland and England are now in their respective high tiers, but the Christmas relaxations on travel and interaction remain.
Businesses across the UK, especially pub owners and restaurateurs, are in understandable dismay at the rapid changes; it was ridiculous that the furlough extension (welcome and sensible though it is) should have been announced after many employers had made plans on a different basis. Many schools in England, having made detailed provision for the post-Christmas period, are now having to revise them.
There has been one obvious, colossal achievement this year: developing vaccines in record time. Whatever mistakes the UK may be judged to have made when we are in a position to know (which may not be for a long time) it seems to have been successful here, creating, testing, approving, acquiring and administering an effective measure before anyone else in the West.
That is a testament to scientists, but also a firm ground on which policy can be clarified. When there is the prospect of significant ability to contain the disease, and of easing restrictions considerably, people may be willing – as they mostly have thus far – to accept that we still need to take the utmost care, but that an end (or a real improvement) is in sight.
That has little to do with whether you accept the need for continued constraints, think them too lax, or consider them excessive. The apparent view of all the UK governments that a forceful crackdown is required, but that Christmas should be different, may be politically understandable, but doesn’t make much sense. Chopping and changing rules, or applying them differently, no longer makes serves a purpose, even if it did once. At the moment no one is satisfied, because no one is clear.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel