Why the U.K. and U.S. Have Been Slow to Lock Down the Coronavirus Threat
Countries pursuing a more gradualist approach to the pandemic face a growing dilemma.
Locked down.
Photographer: Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu Agency
On Friday evening, hours after a London hospital declared they had run out of intensive care beds, Boris Johnson tightened the restrictions on Londoners a notch, closing pubs and restaurants. Part of London’s extensive public transport network is already closed. London is moving closer to lockdown, but it isn’t there yet. In my north London neighborhood, there are plenty of people on the streets, darting in and out of shops, where shelves of necessities have been emptied. The next step, one the government hopes it doesn't have to take, is enforcement.
The empirical evidence for a lockdown couldn’t be clearer: To slow and stop the spread of the novel coronavirus, go early and go hard. The more stringent the measures to keep people physically apart and isolate those who have become infected, the quicker the curve of infections is flattened.