Should boris johnson take the coronavirus test? Yes | thearticle

Following the announcement that the health minister Nadine Dorries has the virus, officially named Covid-19, there has been fevered debate about whether the prime minister and perhaps the

rest of the cabinet should be tested. The official line coming from Downing Street is this: “We follow the advice of Public Health England and the CMO (Chief Medical Officer). The prime

minister has no symptoms so there is no need for a test.” It adds that: “The prime minister was not in close contact with Nadine Dorries. The advice is that you would have to be within two

metres of someone to pass it on.” Dorries had attended a function at Downing Street on the evening before she fell ill, while Boris Johnson had also been there — although indeed it seems

clear they did not come into close contact. Now, this is complicated. The first point to make clear is that it is vital — life-and-death vital — right now that the government, and the rest

of us, receive and heed the best scientific advice available. And there is no one better qualified to give it than the CMO, Professor Chris Whitty, himself an epidemiologist who played a key

role in advising the British government’s involvement in the fight against the Ebola virus in Sierra Leone. Another epidemiologist recently said to me that Whitty and the government’s Chief

Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance, a medical doctor with great experience in the pharmaceutical industry, are the “adults in the room” during this crisis. Second, it’s important to retain

a sense of proportion even — perhaps especially — when faced with a major global emergency of this sort. Naturally, the “two metre” rule is no more than a rough guideline, and it doesn’t

speak to the possibility of someone picking up the virus from droplets coughed or sneezed and then settled on a surface, where it remains active for a long time. On the other hand, it’s

important to recognise that there are limits to the contagion, and not to inculcate the idea that you will catch the disease from glimpsing someone across a crowded room. (Rumours that

people have been wearing gloves and facemasks to Skype colleagues in Italy are all too believable.) But it is the first part of the Downing Street response that is the most troubling: that,

since Johnson has no symptoms, “there is no need for a test”.This is simply untrue. One of the most problematic aspects of Covid-19 is that it seems very likely that you can have it, and be

infectious, before you feel any symptoms. This period of pre-symptomatic infectiousness is not known exactly, but some early studies suggest it could be one to two days. One of the most

important factors in preventing the spread of the virus is early identification of those infected, so that they can be isolated as soon as possible to prevent them from infecting others. In

China, widespread testing along with careful tracking of contacts with known cases meant that this period could be reduced to two days (people with the virus can remain infectious for about

a week). So quickly finding and testing people who have been in contact with an individual with the virus, whether those people have the symptoms themselves, is key. The Downing Street

comment spreads misleading information about this. The other consideration, of course, is that in taking a test simply to be on the safe side, Johnson would be offering a good example to

anyone nervous about being tested themselves. He would be showing that there’s no stigma or danger attached to it, and that indeed we are all in this together. Downing Street could simply

say that, even though normally close contact is needed for the infection to be passed on, in this case the extra need for caution and public reassurance, as well as the dangers of

transmission via surfaces, has made it advisable to play it safe. In any event, government sources need to be much more careful about what they say. Clear and accurate public information

will be essential if the worst scenarios are to be avoided. Johnson has already caused anger and dismay when he said on ITV’s breakfast show “This Morning” last Thursday, in regard to the

government’s plans, that “one of the theories is, that perhaps you could take it on the chin, take it all in one go and allow the disease, as it were, to move through the population, without

taking as many draconian measures”. Some people interpreted the remark as advocacy of that (alarmingly dangerous) strategy. It was not. Johnson went on to say that “I think it would be

better if we take all the measures that we can now to stop the peak of the disease being as difficult for the NHS as it might be.” What is troubling, however, is where this “theory” came

from in the first place. It is not one that I have heard any health professionals adduce, and for very good reason: thousands would probably die, and the health service would be utterly

overwhelmed. It’s possible that Johnson meant simply to imply that this is the kind of thing some people are apt to say. If so, that is no way to make the point. Calling it a “theory” sounds

like it is official advice, albeit advice not followed. The Johnsonian “take it on the chin” might sound terribly British and stoical, but is woefully inappropriate when what it really

means is a catastrophic fatality rate. But perhaps most importantly, it sends out a message of fatalism to an all too receptive audience. There is already a widespread view that this is all

a fuss about nothing, because after all lots of people die each flu season. A remark like this plays into such views. If you doubt that, consider what a healthcare professional told my wife

this morning while administering hand gel at the door of the A&E department (the visit was for a totally unrelated matter). “We’re all going to get it anyway. Boris Johnson said so.”

Where do you think that idea came from? There is no margin for error in public communication about Covid-19, and the sloppiness that has crept into political comment in the past few years

could now be lethal.