The Dangers of Low Expectations

Daniel Finkelstein wrote in The Times yesterday here that it is important that politicians level with the public on the difficult trade offs involved in a lockdown, and what easing it off might in practice mean. You can read his piece here. There are some strong arguments made, but I do have one big problem with the article. It does seem to underplay the potential a mass testing and tracing regime might have to keep transmission rates (R) below, or roughly at 1. In particular, he does not explicitly mention the fact that South Korea seems to have done precisely this, to great effect. Note that this does not imply that a lockdown can be relaxed any time soon, as this strategy does not work if the number of cases greatly exceeds testing capacity, as Julia Gog explains here. In practice this means both bringing down case numbers in the mean time through more quite drastic social distancing measures (a lockdown) while developing testing capacity.

But I think there is a broader point here: while some degree of understanding of the complexities and difficulties of the situation is important, and it isn't useful for the public to just blame politicians for a natural catastrophe (particularly if some level of goodwill is required for mass compliance to lockdown measures), it's important that expectations of the government aren't set too low either. If it is indeed possible, or there is a good chance it is possible to ease the lockdown at some point in the future without another major outbreak if testing capacity is significantly increased, it is vital that the government does this. And if the government is failing to do this even though this is possible (albeit logistically difficult), it is important this fact is in the public domain and proper scrutiny is applied (which is why I argued here, that Starmer was right to ask questions about an exit strategy).

Now it might well turn out that such a strategy, while workable from as a purely epidemiological perspective, is not logistically workable in the UK at this late stage. But it's important that this isn't just left for the government to decide in secret. As with the initial delay of social distancing measures, it might well turn out that choices are made on fairly flimsy reasoning. And it would be a tragedy if here too the road not taken led to much better place.

This is just one example of the dangers of setting expectations too low. But there are others too, most notably in the provision of PPE to care and hospital workers. While the logistical challenges are undoubtedly immense, it cannot suffice to simply let any failures go unchallenged when other countries seem to manage much better. And if, as may well be the case, it turns out that mass adoption of mask wearing also turns out to be a crucial tool for allowing the lockdown to ease, it's vital that a strategy is in place to ensure the mass production and distribution of masks. A situation in which the government is allowed to brush aside problems as resulting purely from the natural features of the virus would be a dangerous one. So of course, we must be reasonable with our expectations and not try underestimate the logistical challenges of this pandemic. But expectations let's not expect any less of our government than what we expect of other wealthy countries.