Rule of six gone for six?

Despite being brought in to help simplify the Covid-19 restrictions, the ‘rule of six’ seems only to have added to all the confusion.

Last Wednesday saw MPs renew the Coronavirus Act, and with it the government’s ability to enforce restrictions across the country. There is now, however, an understanding for greater Commons’ involvement. This was achieved after an uprising of Tory MPs, who were angry about the government’s lockdown measures, which were being enforced with little consultation of parliament. Sir Graham Brady, Chairman of the influential 1922 Committee, thanked the government for being ‘prepared to listen’, but it’s uncertain how much the new agreements may actually come to fruition.

In his address to the Commons, Health Secretary Matt Hancock mentioned that, for measures affecting the whole of England or the UK, votes will be held ‘wherever possible’. He caveated this response however, saying that the government must act ‘with speed when required’ and ‘cannot hold up urgent regulations which are needed to control the virus and save lives’. Given that many of the restrictions applied within the country are done so within tight time frames, there’s a suggestion that there may be little change from the status quo in regards to parliament’s influence.

This all comes at a time when the government is under significant pressure from MPs and regional authorities as a result of the inefficiency and contradictory nature of the rules being enforced across the country. Councillors representing Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle have now written to Mr Hancock with a new Covid-19 plan. This plan suggests an increase in local decision-making, aiming to reduce transmission levels whilst also protecting the economic welfare of the specific area. This is a careful balance which the government has been struggling with, and with daily new cases on Friday at 13,864, it doesn’t seem to be tipping in their favour. 

Balancing competing priorities

There seems to be a mismatch in government actions which come from this dilemma of needing to stem the exponential spiral of infections, and also avoiding a total economic shutdown of the scale of March. Whilst the rule of six seems like a happy medium between the two priorities, the opening of the country in some areas and locking down in others seems contradictory and is leading to genuine confusion.

Take universities and schools for example. The latter are operating at full capacity, with the added social distancing and bubbling of different year groups, these bubbles are often as large as 320 pupils. Contrast this with universities where students are only allowed to socialise with the five or so others in their corridor. And whilst a family of five couldn’t meet with one other household that exceeds one, a family of three could potentially meet with three others from three different households. In the event one of these two was infected, the virus could potentially be passed onto three different households rather than one in the first example.

As they implement this half open, half shut environment, the government also seems to have changed its tune in regards to compensation. We all remember Rishi Sunak’s rousing ‘We will do whatever it takes’ of March but this seems to have shifted to ‘hard choices’ that must be made and ‘sacred responsibility’ to balance the books which the Chancellor declared at the Conservative Party Conference on Monday.

‘Easier to say you’re confused and give up’

One populace where the government is particularly losing confidence is with university students. Both the University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan have now made the move to online lectures. This is after seeing a significant rise in Coronavirus cases in their community whilst conducting these in person. Commentators are quick to blame students for failure to comply with the rules that would help limit the spread, and whilst the moral sense of shared responsibility amongst young people has sometimes been less than desirable, many have not had any restrictions enforced upon them.

Though the government is responsible for the control of the virus, it has been left up to individual universities to police these rules, which has led to a disproportionate response across the country. Some report parties continuing into the early hours of the morning, often with over 50 attendants, going unmonitored.

At some universities, such as the University of York, students do describe the rules as clear, however most agree that none of these restrictions have been enforced efficiently. If they have, it was done counter-actively, following a surge in new cases. One student at University College London told me that ‘with so many changes people can’t be bothered to keep up, it’s easier to say you’re confused and give up’. 

Too many U-turns?

A history of mixed messaging is haunting this government following the several U-turns over the last few months. These include the provision of free school meals, the Coronavirus app, and GCSE and A-Level exams. Perhaps this encourages a general disregard for government advice, as precedent says it’s likely to be the opposite tomorrow anyway (either that or whatever Scotland did yesterday).

This contrasts with other European countries, like Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel has implemented similar restrictions to the Prime Minister albeit faster. Her background in science perhaps allowing for a more analytical rather than political approach to the pandemic making her a more reliable figure. 

At the moment the focus is in the here and now, with the situation changing daily for all global leaders, as the growing second wave rears its head. But once the virus has been placated and a vaccine distributed, perhaps there is a wider question to be had about bringing more science into politics…and less politics into science.

Aarthee Parimelalaghan

Featured image courtesy of Grooveland Designs on Unsplash. Image license found here. No changes were made to this image.