8 | New Scientist | 24 October 2020WITH cases of covid-19 rising
in most parts of the UK, there is
fierce debate over the best way to
respond. While some people argue
for a “let the virus rip” strategy,
others want increasing social
restrictions, up to and including
full lockdown, as happened in
the pandemic’s first wave.
But is there another way?
One idea gaining ground is that
countries should hold regular pre-
emptive lockdowns, each lasting
about two weeks. They could be
timed to coincide with school
holidays, minimising disruption
to education. In the UK, this would
mean having these shutdowns
around every two months.
The concept may sound
similar to short, sharp, “circuit
breaker” lockdowns, which have
been advocated by some scientists
advising the UK government,
including chief scientific adviser
Patrick Vallance. Northern
Ireland began such a lockdown
on 16 October and Wales has
announced it will do the same
from 23 October.
Yet there is a crucial difference
between these strategies: the idea
is that pre-emptive lockdowns
would happen periodically, even
when a country’s coronavirus case
numbers are relatively low. The
advance knowledge of when they
are due to happen is supposed to
reduce the impact on businesses,
while the fact that they are short
and have a definite end point
could make them more bearable.
It is hard to know exactly what
effect this would have on virus
prevalence, but it should regularly
reset case numbers to a lower
level. At best, it could help avoid
the longer kind of lockdowns seen
in the pandemic’s first wave.This year, there has been
growing appreciation of the toll on
mental health caused by stopping
people mixing with their friends
and family. Pre-emptive circuit
breakers may lessen this burden
slightly. “The specified length of
time reduces uncertainty, and itis uncertainty that often promotes
anxiety and poor mental well-
being,” says Charlotte Hilton,
a chartered psychologist based
in the East Midlands, UK.
Businesses like pubs,
restaurants and non-essential
shops would still have to cope
with a loss of income: if two weeks
of lockdown were scheduled every
two months, they would be closed
around a quarter of the time. Yet if
they knew when these shutdowns
were coming, they may be able tofinancially plan around them
more effectively.
Unfortunately, if a lockdown
is suddenly announced, then
firms lose out on the advantages
of forward planning. As such, it
is too late to gain those kinds of
benefits from any immediate
circuit-breaker lockdowns that
may happen this time around.
How can we know if pre-
emptive lockdowns would
be better than the alternative
approach of tightening social
restrictions only when cases
rise and loosening them when
numbers fall? This kind of strategy
hasn’t been tried anywhere in the
world, so we can’t yet measure its
effects on actual covid-19 cases,
mental health or the economy.
But a modelling study by
Graham Medley at the London
School of Hygiene & Tropical
Medicine and his colleagues
suggests that a two-week, UK-wide
lockdown at the end of October
would halve deaths from covid-between then and the end of this
year. Because health is a devolved
matter in the UK, a decision to take
such action would have to be made
by the respective governments of
the four UK nations. When that
paper was written, an October
lockdown like the one proposed
would have been pre-emptive.
The work has been put online
but isn’t yet published.
As coronavirus case numbers
are climbing in most parts of
the UK, the debate has turned
to whether current local
restrictions are enough or
if the four UK nations need
a full, immediate lockdown.
This would be similar to actions
taken by Israel last month, which
began what was supposed to be
a three-week lockdown in
response to rapidly rising cases.
Although it had to be extended
by one week, the country has
now started easing restrictions.
In the UK, members of an
independent advisory panel called
Independent SAGE last week asked
for a full and immediate lockdown
across the whole of the country
lasting two or three weeks, plus
several further weeks of slightly
less severe restrictions.
Independent SAGE member
Christina Pagel at University
College London says regular
pre-emptive lockdowns wouldn’t
be needed if the UK used this
proposed shutdown to revamp
its test-and-trace system. “We do
not want to keep closing things.
To plan for that is an admission
of failure,” she says.
Michael Edelstein at the
Bar-Ilan University in Ramat
Gan, Israel, says planning ahead
is vital, but rather than lockdowns
happening at set dates, it would be
better for countries to have agreed
infection thresholds that trigger
them. “You don’t have time to
debate it for weeks.” ❚“ Pre-emptive lockdowns
would happen even when
a country’s coronavirus
case numbers are low”News Coronavirus
Circuit breakersCH
ARLE
S^ MCQUILLA
N/GET
TY
IMAGESLockdown again and again?
Could planned, pre-emptive lockdowns at regular intervals be a way
to manage the spread of the coronavirus? Clare Wilson investigatesNorthern Ireland entered
a short-term lockdown
on 16 October