On 19 July, England is due to end those everyday legal restrictions introduced some 16 months ago to limit the spread of Covid-19. The pressure upon the government to do so from members of its own party and certain parts of the press has been mounting for weeks. Yet, with the new delta variant sweeping the world, Covid-19 incidence has been rising exponentially described it) upon evidence gleaned from the efficacy of the vaccines that have, since the winter months, been rolled out across the majority of the population. So far, more than 87% of UK adults have received their first shot of the Pfizer, Moderna, or Astra Zeneca vaccine, and over 66% have had their second jabs. Thanks to this extraordinarily successful campaign, levels of hospitalizations and fatalities, though increasing, have not risen in line with the growth in infection rates. The UK’s daily COVID death rate peaked at more than 1,300 in mid-January; as of writing, it stands at less than three percent of that, though daily infection rates are exceeding 30,000 and approaching half of their winter high.

The UK government will remain particularly conscious of the numbers of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and how the additional pressure of this might continue to impact upon the British National Health Service’s capacity to support needs unrelated to that pandemic. Despite the increasingly strident calls from his own colleagues to re-open society and economy as soon as possible – for the sake of the country’s employment rates, its businesses, and its people’s wellbeing – those hospitalization figures will weigh heavily upon Boris Johnson’s mind. This represents an almost impossible balancing act for any government. It would take the wisdom of Solomon to resolve it.

Scientists have advised that this is the best time of year for the unlocking of England because the warmer weather conditions make it more likely that people will congregate outside (rather than in indoor venues where infection risks are greater) and because the school holidays have reduced the contacts between children, which had played a key part in fuelling the spread of the disease. However, given that epidemiologists have already suggested a link between a rise in Covid-19 incidence and the increased social mixing which accompanied the England men’s football team’s successes in the Euros, it seems inevitable that the complete removal of restrictions will cause a further upswing in cases. 

There also remains one particular area of immediate controversy upon which not even senior members of Mr. Johnson’s administration can agree with. The government has said that the wearing of face masks (which has previously been required in retail and entertainment venues, on public transport, and when moving around in restaurants and bars) should become a matter of personal judgment and conscience. Last year, the Prime Minister’s libertarian instincts delayed the mandatory wearing of face-coverings long past the point where their effectiveness had been demonstrated, and again he’s shown that he prefers to allow people to rely on their own judgment in such matters. 

Quizzed by journalists, some ministers have said that they’d not wear masks; others have said that they would wear them in crowded trains and supermarkets. One of the more respected members of the government, the vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi, has said he believes that people should continue to do so. Many people have supposed they’ll continue wearing them in all indoor public spaces. It’s been pointed out that you don’t wear a face mask to protect yourself, but to protect others; if you don’t wear one, you’re putting others at risk. The question as to whether it should be a matter of individual preference or of social responsibility, therefore, remains the topic of some ethical debate.

Critics of this policy (or lack of policy) have argued that the imposition of COVID restrictions isn’t dissimilar to speed limits on roads or smoking bans in indoor public spaces, and it seems anomalous that the government would at this point choose to relax them. Mr. Johnson has said that the reopening should happen gradually but has removed the regulations that would underpin this process. Nightclubs are, for example, encouraged to ask revelers to show proofs of vaccination for admission but they aren’t required to do so.

Several companies have indicated that their patrons and staff may still be asked to wear masks. The government seems to believe that compulsory mask-wearing may discourage customers, but it appears not to have considered the possibility that some may be deterred from entering business premises as much by the prospect of others not wearing masks as by the requirement to wear masks themselves. As such, it remains uncertain which approach might best promote that crucial factor in economic recovery, and might restore consumer confidence.

Related News

News from Nowhere: This time it’s war

It’s official: Ukraine conflict is British ‘proxy war’

In contrast to England, Scotland and Wales have announced that they will maintain mask-wearing in specific circumstances as legally mandatory. The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has also said that face-coverings will continue to be required on public transport.

Another area of significant contention will emerge more urgently a little further down the line: the mass vaccination of children. Both scientific and political opinions are sharply divided on this point. Some raised objections to this choice because children are unlikely to become seriously ill as a result of catching this disease. They say that all vaccination processes contain some small elements of risk, and it would be unfair to expose minors to the risks of vaccination if they won’t directly experience its benefits.

Others pointed out that children do of course benefit from mass vaccination. A society that has COVID under control (a country that has learned to live with it) is one in which those children’s access to healthcare and education, and scope for leisure and socialization, are not limited by the conditions of the pandemic; it’s one in which their future economic, social and employment opportunities are set back on track; it’s one in which their long-term prospects for mental and physical health are best served. Vaccination, then, becomes a matter of enlightened and strategic self-interest.

Other countries (including the devolved nations within the UK) will be looking to see how England fares over the next few months when determining their own lockdown exit strategies. As such, England will become an immense laboratory experiment. The first risk is that, if Covid becomes endemic (if pretty much everyone ends up contracting it), then hospitalization and mortality rates may rise significantly among those who have not been vaccinated, those who’ve only received the first dose of the vaccine, and those for whom the vaccine isn’t fully effective in preventing serious symptoms. The second risk is that the reopening of society, here and elsewhere, and the resulting increases in the spread of the disease, may generate new variants and that such variants may have greater resistance to vaccines than those encountered so far.

But the risks of reopening society must be weighed against the very real threats to our social, political, cultural, and economic freedoms, and to our physical and mental health, of failing to do so. The Prime Minister must feel the hand of history upon his shoulder and know that the world is watching. It’s difficult to imagine the burden of this responsibility. For once, this might be a moment for those across the ideological spectrum to afford Mr. Johnson a little understanding. We may not agree with his choices, but we can sympathize with his predicament; for if this global crisis has taught us anything, it should be that he has come to recognize the essential value of understanding, empathy, and reconciliation as we try to move forward to rebuild our broken world.

In a televised news conference on July 12, the larger-than-life Prime Minister seemed rather less exuberant than usual. He looked terribly out of his depth. He had bowed to the pressure to lift restrictions but he was asking the country to continue to follow them. His tone was sober, his demeanor thoughtful, uncharacteristically humble, vulnerable, almost apologetic, as he pleaded with the public to behave responsibly. He’d even combed his famously unruly hair. His anxious eyes said it all, entreating fortune’s favor as he rolled the dice on England’s greatest gamble since D-Day.