We have flattened the curve — what happens next?
We need an exit strategy, and we must be realistic about it.
In 31st of December 2019, a SARS-like disease caused by new strain of coronavirus was officially reported in the city of Wuhan, China. Not long after, the virus had become a pandemic of a kind not seen on Earth in a hundred years. News of health systems facing total collapse in China and Italy, mass graves in Iran and the biggest single-day stock market crash in history shocked the world. To brace for the impending doom, the UK decided to institute drastic measures: the whole country would be locked down for an indefinite time to protect the NHS from collapsing. All public events were cancelled, schools and universities closed and even the movement of people was restricted: Britons would be allowed to leave the house once a day for exercise, and not meet up with individuals from other households. At the same time, the government prepared for the tsunami of COVID-19 victims by deploying field hospitals and ordering ventilators from any manufacturer capable of producing them, such as the Red Bull Formula 1 team. Elsewhere, mass graves were built in New York City. Amidst all of this, a single phrase came to describe the effort all nations around the world were to strive for: flattening the curve. Societies should attempt to slow the rate of new COVID-19 infections so the health system would not get overwhelmed and managed to treat each patient with the level of care they deserve. However, “flattening the curve” had another, less understood consequence: it would extend the duration of the epidemic as the people who catch the virus would be spread over a longer period of time.
Now, months later, the curve has finally been flattened. The number of daily new cases in the UK is reducing, and PM Boris Johnson has announced the first easing of lockdown policies. No mass graves were built, and the field hospitals will be closed with the London Nightingale Hospital with a capacity of 4000 beds having treated just 54 patients since the start of the epidemic. At the same time, the phrase “flatten the curve” has disappeared from public consciousness as quickly as it appeared. And while the strict lockdown measures were once supported widely, the public has now been divided into two camps: one wanting the lockdown policies to be released, and the other demanding them to stay in place. With all that’s happened, it’s time to ask a question. What should we do now?
The UK, as well as many other countries, must choose an exit strategy. As far as I see it, there are two, and only two, valid exit strategies: either we eradicate the virus, or we form a herd immunity through vaccine or the natural spread of the virus. It’s time for countries to choose which path they will take.
On paper, eradication sounds like the most pleasant approach. Using the war analogies many have put forwards, wouldn’t doing otherwise mean conceding defeat, as well as condemning the sick and vulnerable to a certain death? However, an eradication strategy doesn’t come without a cost either. Firstly, it would require much longer periods of lockdown, as the number of daily cases would not only need to plateau but drop all the way to zero. The lockdown policies themselves would also need to be much more draconian: in Wuhan, officials welded apartment doors shut in order to keep people from leaving their homes. While the strategy would certainly save lives from COVID-19, it’s impact on the mental and physical health on every citizen, especially the weakest and loneliest in the society, would be unpalatable. And this is without mentioning the economic costs of a prolonged lockdown, which would likely lead to widespread job losses and subsequent cuts to government spending. Because of this, I only see the eradication strategy as a realistic option for smaller, geographically isolated countries like Taiwan and New Zealand who haven’t yet experienced widespread spread of the disease. For countries like the UK, USA and China, it will be nearly impossible.
In my opinion, countries that cannot realistically eradicate the virus should face the reality and return to the old strategy of flattening the curve. This involves the relaxation of lockdown policies, and keeping the spread of the virus at acceptable levels where the health system does not get overwhelmed. The social and economic cost of prolonged lockdowns is simply too high. If we choose to take this path, social distancing will be more crucial than ever: we have to adapt to a “new normal” of avoiding contact with strangers, meeting our friends and family in small groups only, and using face masks in order to keep the spread of the virus at a sustainable level. This new way of life may have to last until a vaccine is developed, or until an extensive infrastructure of testing and contact tracing can reliably detect and isolate new infections before they manage to spread the disease further.
