Coronavirus complacency

I am, regrettably, as readers of this blog will have realised, increasingly becoming that unattractive creature, a grumpy old man. Perhaps it's exacerbated by the frustration of lockdown added to disability. My usual sunny disposition seems to hide beneath the clouds. But I hope you'll allow me another moan.

One recent Sunday night as I brushed my teeth I heard this unpalatable interchange between Stephen Nolan and his guest on his Radio 5 Live show. It went something like this. Esther Rantzen, who was his guest, she of Childline and Silverline and That's Life had been arguing, I gather, that people over 70 whatever their state of health or fitness should confine themselves to their homes even when others were being allowed out as the epidemic eased off. She advanced good reasons for her thesis, and of course callers agreed and disagreed. Then Stephen Nolan asked:

"SN How tough are you finding it all?

"ER  Do you want the truth...? Promise you won’t tell anyone...? 

Like Michael Palin this morning, Michael Palin said. Getting up and finding you haven’t got an alarm clock waking you at 7, suddenly finding you haven’t got to get up and do this and that and the other, suddenly being able to reflect a little bit, about the crucial things in life, the most precious things in life, having an opportunity just to write things down for your grandchildren, it’s such an extraordinary opportunity. 

The Queen talked about having time to reflect, and I’m hoping we come out of this with some idea about what life is really for and about, who the people are in our lives, about what the world is for. (You know when someone quotes Michael Palin and the Queen it's a weak idea that needs propping up.)

"SN  I’ve spoken to you a number of times over the years… Here’s the truth about me. I agree with you. I’m working 7 days a week around the clock for the last 20 odd years. You know what this business is like….

I’ve seen more of my house in the last 5 or 6 weeks than in 5 or 6 years. And do you know what? I kinda enjoy it. I enjoy the simplicity of not rushing out to work, and looking up and seeing the colour of the sky, and having a bit of time for me and a bit of time to think. Now I wouldn’t want it to go on for ever, but actually it’s not that bad - for me.

"ER. And we’ve watched a beautiful spring, the sunniest April since records began. I know it’s a disaster because it’s global warming and all that, but it’s been so beautiful…. I think it’s the workaholics like you are and I used to be this is a very useful splash of cold water to make us recognise that actually we were cutting out of our lives the things that make life worth living."

Well, it was a very lovely piece of homespun philosophy - with which I partly agreed - but I'm afraid it annoyed me. It was so coy and complacent. These very well-fed broadcasters who without doubt have very nice houses (probably more than one), investments and savings, and who are continuing to earn and can look forward to triple-locked pensions as well as occupational schemes, can afford to enjoy "the extraordinary opportunity" of lockdown. But there are many more who can't. There are millions more who are struggling and will be much worse off after this whole thing is "part of history".

March saw a rise in rainforest deforestation in the Amazon of 30% in March compared to last year, while the rest of the world was distracted with COVID-19. Also contributing to the problem of climate change, large areas of blanket bog in Northern Ireland were set on fire last week. As Ms Rantzen, put it, lightly, "it’s global warming and all that". The virus will be nothing compared to the effects of global warming. That would the real "disaster".

Photo: BBC TV

And the ones who will suffer from it are not the generation of the post-war baby boomers or the preceding generation. It's the very ones who are bearing the brunt of the present enforced restrictions, and will for decades to come be paying for the necessary but seemingly unending stream of £ billions of government expenditure in the face of the virus. I can understand why the government toyed with the idea of "herd immunity" which would have at least culled many of us pensioners and perhaps shortened the pandemic's grip here. (However I'm glad they changed their tune since it seems a particularly unpleasant way to die.)  

To give him his due, before the news Stephen Nolan did give a nod to the younger generation who are hit hardest: the single parents' restricted to their urban flats, workers in the gig economy, the millions whose work had suddenly gone, those hoping to buy their first home. They can't afford to admire the spring-time; they have to work all hours merely to survive. They can't rely on foodbanks and charity for ever. Their lives will never be the same. Their personal economies will not recover. We have personal security but we have very probably impoverished the next generation and their children. The least we can do for them is to act as decisively as we have been scared by COVID-19 into doing in the face of climate change - "led by the science". We may yet be able to save them at least from climate catastrophe.

The Church opens its mouth - a crack

I know I was not alone when I expressed disquiet about the shutting up of churches (see The silencing of the Church).

So I was pleased to see a modification, a confusion (not so pleasing) and a clarification following the bishops' and archbishops' zoom meeting on Tuesday. Here's the guts of the statement.

"While church buildings remain closed for public worship, in line with Government advice, the Bishops agreed in principle to a phased approach to lifting restrictions, in time and in parallel with the Government’s approach, with three broad stages as infection levels improve:

1. An initial immediate phase allowing very limited access to church buildings for activities such as streaming of services or private prayer by clergy in their own parishes, so long as the necessary hygiene and social distancing precautions are taken
2. Subsequently access for some rites and ceremonies when allowed by law, observing appropriate physical distancing and hygiene precautions
3. Worship services with limited congregations meeting, when Government restrictions are eased to allow this

The Bishops agreed that the decision on the timing of when to implement the revised advice on ministers or worship leaders praying and streaming from their church buildings should be made by individual Diocesan Bishops, depending on their local situation.

The Bishops were clear once again that this is guidance – not an instruction or law – and that it will be constantly reviewed depending on the national situation."

The clarification was contained in the sentence: "The Bishops were clear once again that this is guidance – not an instruction or law – and that it will be constantly reviewed depending on the national situation." (My emphasis) In the initial statement, you may recall, there were three 'musts' and one 'should'. "Our church buildings must now be closed...." To my mind that sounded very much like an instruction. And clearly it did to the vast majority of clergy. Bishops with their elevated sense of responsibility can sound a paternalistic, if not authoritarian, tone, such as: "I am able to issue some new permissive guidance", followed by very detailed instructions. Admittedly it is difficult to give guidance without sounding prescriptive, and perhaps some clergy are not to be trusted. Perhaps an expression like "I would recommend the following as best practice" would be preferable.

The modification was "allowing" clergy access to their church buildings in their parishes for clergy subject to hygiene and social distancing precautions. This as I pointed out after 26th March was in fact permitted by law already - as indeed are funerals. Which is the confusing element of the statement. As I cited before:
"A retired judge has pointed out to me that the complete sealing of churches is not the law, simply ecclesiastical guidance. The relevant piece of legislation is this: 
Statutory Instruments
2020 No. 350
Public Health, England
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
Made
at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Laid before Parliament
at 2.30 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Coming into force
at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020

Further restrictions and closures during the emergency period
5.
(6) A place of worship may be used—
(a)for funerals,
(b)to broadcast an act of worship, whether over the internet or as part of a radio or television broadcast, or
(c)to provide essential voluntary services or urgent public support services (including the provision of food banks or other support for the homeless or vulnerable people, blood donation sessions or support in an emergency)."
 
I suspect the confusion won't be cleared up for us. Funerals in church are permitted by law (as they are in crematoria), but parishes are "guided" but not "instructed" not to allow them. Which seems to me a considerable pity. Isn't it the least we can do for grieving relatives? Isn't that what it means to be pastors? But still "a first small step" in the episcopal phrase. Be grateful for small mercies, my sainted mother would have told me.