UK: +44 1379 658 721
Ireland: +353 89 221 3723
USA: +1 754 252 3536
Middle East - N. Africa: + 971 52 873 4738
Australia: +61 3 9310 5259
Thank you to New Scientist magazine for this story. In a world where false news gets in the way far too frequently, the publication is our primary source of the truth and a wholly reliable home to oodles of brilliant facts. This time around the eggheads have delved deep into the concept of 'circuit breaker' lockdowns – are they a good idea or something dreamed up by numpties? Let's find out.
The trend for short, sharp lockdowns
The idea of short, strict lockdowns, sometimes called 'circuit breakers', is gaining traction around the world. The idea is that we need to implement a series of regular pre-emptive lockdowns, each a couple of weeks long and planned to dovetail with school holidays, bringing minimum disruption for kids and parents.
In Britain the idea is that these short shut downs would take place every eight weeks. The planned pre-emptive lockdowns would happen regularly even when coronavirus case numbers are quite low, and the advance knowledge of their timing should have less impact on business than random lockdowns. Because they're short there's a definite end to them, which the public might find easier to bear. Short lockdowns should, in theory, re-set case numbers to a new, lower level, and do so regularly. In the best case scenario, the idea might even completely remove the need for the long lockdowns we saw earlier in 2020.
Pre-emptive circuit-breakers could also stem the expected tide of mental illness and other problems around not being able to be with the people you love. It matters when the sheer uncertainty of it all appears to be one of the things we find the hardest to bear.
Businesses, especially in the entertainment sector, would still struggle from lost income during these circuit breaker lockdowns. If we get two weeks of lockdown every two months, they'll be closed 25% of the time. But at least they'd know what was coming, when, which means they could maybe find it easier to plan their finances.
Are planned circuit breakers better than reactive lockdowns?
Will these circuit breakers make more sense than making social restrictions tighter when cases rise, then reducing them again when cases fall? Because it's a new idea, never before tested, it's hard to tell. On the other hand it has been computer-modelled in much the same powerful way as scientists model different scenarios to predict the effects of climate change.
Graham Medley at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and his colleagues' model – not yet published - seems to suggest a two week, nationwide lockdown at the end of October 2020 would 'halve deaths from Covid-19 between then and the end of this year', a decision that'd involve the governments of all four UK countries. The debate right now, as we write, is around whether current local restrictions are enough, or if a full, non-pre-emptive lockdown for all four nations is the way ahead.
Israel took similar actions in September, a three-week lockdown designed to stall rapidly rising cases. The lockdown was extended to four weeks, but restrictions are now being eased. As Michael Edelstein at the Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, says, it's vital to be able to plan ahead. But instead of lockdowns on set dates, he thinks it makes more sense for nations to agree the infection thresholds that should trigger them, simply because it removes the need for lengthy debate every time a lockdown is suggested.
Here in Britain, last week, SAGE asked for a 'full and immediate lockdown' across the whole of the UK lasting two or three weeks, plus several more weeks of less severe restrictions. But Christina Pagel of SAGE, an independent scientist at University College London, has another idea. She believes frequent pre-emptive lockdowns wouldn’t be needed at all if the UK used this proposed shutdown to bring its test and trace system up to the required standard. As she said, “We do not want to keep closing things. To plan for that is an admission of failure.”
How would a series of regular, planned circuit breaks affect you?
As a business owner, would you rather have to handle regular, planned mini-lockdowns or deal with random lockdowns you can't plan for? How would it affect you as a parent? We'd love to know.