Lockdown comment: Conundrum around health versus wealth
Boris Johnson has known for some time that the decision over how and when to ease the lockdown would be the most difficult he had ever faced.
As the PM said, the coronavirus is "the most vicious threat" the country has come up against in his lifetime, meaning there is no chance of us getting back to anything close to normality any time soon.
It has become clear in recent weeks that in devising the so-called "roadmap" out of lockdown, the key conundrum revolves around health versus wealth.
With no vaccine available and testing still sporadic for a virus that continues to kill hundreds of British people each day, how do you get the country back to work while containing its spread?
There is no doubt that while the Covid-19 shutdown continues to have a major social and economic impact on this country, its full consequences are yet to be seen.
Later this year we are likely to be faced with a colossal rise in unemployment, potentially to record levels.
Despite government intervention on an unprecedented scale, thousands of businesses are will not survive into 2021, with all research pointing to our region being one of the country's worst hit.
In economic terms, the UK is heading for a catastrophe that will make the 2008 financial crash look like a slight dip into the overdraft.
The lack of an obvious way out of the lockdown has left many criticising the PM's plans, which did not exactly come across as being crystal clear when first aired on Sunday.
There were a string of key messages: Get back to work if you can't work from home; schools and more shops could open in June; and take as much outdoor exercise as you like.
While some more meat has since been put on the bones, an air of confusion still remains.
More Covid-19 coverage:
On one hand, with a death rate already above 30,000, the Government is desperate to avoid a second spike.
But however you frame it, replacing the "stay home" slogan with a new one – "stay alert" – does suggest a lessening of the hardline message which the vast majority of the public has stuck to since March 23.
Fair enough, you can't keep telling people to stay at home when you really want them to return to work.
But questions remain over a strategy that revolves around social distancing rules being strictly maintained once the number of people out and about has increased drastically.
How exactly will this work in schools and on public transport – and for the thousands of people whose job requires them to work in enclosed spaces?
Everyone agrees that the nation's health must always be the priority, and ministers are acutely aware of how countries which have jumped the gun in lifting restrictions have seen infection rates head northwards.
The Government's priority is to protect public health. It would be very nice if this could happen without it resulting in the complete and utter destruction of Britain's economy.
The message is perfectly straightforward: let's get things moving – providing we all stay two metres apart.
How exactly this is supposed to work in practice is less clear.
