Ross Clark

We have, of course, been transformed into a nation of hoarders and panic buyers. We know this because everyone keeps telling us. There are the queues around the block, waiting for Asda to open; the tearful nurse on Twitter who couldn’t get any food after a 48-hour shift; anecdotes galore about people loading loo rolls into their trolleys by the tree trunk-load, fighting over each consignment as it arrives. How much more civilised we all were – it has been claimed – during wartime. I’m sure there are people panic-buying and hoarding vast quantities of tinned foods, but is it all quite so bad as being made out?

It has become a received wisdom that coronavirus has forced Boris Johnson to morph into Jeremy Corbyn. Vast handouts to business, surging borrowing, open-ended commitments to NHS spending: there’s certainly a whiff of Labour policy in there. Some Conservative ministers even appear to see it that way; 'We'll find ourselves implementing most of Jeremy Corbyn's programme,' one of them told Robert Peston yesterday. But no, we have not ended up, by accident, with the government that we would have had if we had voted for Jeremy Corbyn in December. There is a world of difference between the measures that Rishi Sunak’s emergency measures and what Corbyn would have unleashed on the country.  True, borrowing is going to rise to eye-watering levels.

Boris Johnson, according to a large Twitter mob this morning, is a reckless libertarian – ignoring the drastic but effective measures being taken against coronavirus in other countries – in the same spirit he once praised the mayor in Jaws who kept the beaches open in spite of swimmers being eaten. A large body of opinion appears to be on the side of Jeremy Hunt, who questioned the government’s strategy on Channel 4 news last night. But there is a fundamental problem with this narrative – and not just that many of the same people now praising Hunt were lambasting him several years ago as a charlatan, ignoring the advice of experts in the NHS.

Yes, of course Donald Trump’s ban on travel between the US and the Schengen zone is an over-reaction to coronavirus, which will do far more harm to the economy than it will to protect the health of Americans. But it is pretty rich for the EU to be bleating about others banning things without scientific justification.  The EU has protested bitterly about the American ban, complaining it was introduced unilaterally without consultation. Guy Verhofstadt tweets: 'Instead of a travel ban for Europeans Trump should make a decent health care system that works for Americans.' The usual anti-Trumpites have weighed in with their ha’porth of wisdom, with Simon Schama calling the travel ban 'an idiotic and purely political stunt'.

Donald Trump is in the soup again, this time for appearing to reject the World Health Organisation’s estimate for the death rate from coronavirus (Covid-19): 3.4 per cent. 'I think the 3.4 per cent is really a false number,' he said on Thursday before adding that he had a ‘hunch’ that the real death rate is less than one per cent. Twitter, needless to say, immediately went into meltdown, the most polite response was to call him ‘irresponsible’. Trump is not quite the person I would call upon for insight into matters relating to virology. He does, of course, have a reputation for shooting from the hip, yet his reasoning on this is more sound than many of his critics would admit. Indeed, the WHO itself was at pains to stress that it’s 3.

It’s a bloodbath in the markets, but by how much could the real, global economy be affected by the coronavirus outbreak? A research note by Oxford Economics seeks to answer that question by comparing it with the experience of Japan following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. On that occasion, Japan’s industrial production slumped by 15 per cent in a single month, before taking several months to recover. The car industry was affected still more, with a 60 per cent plunge in the month following the earthquake. Interestingly, notes the think tank, the part of Japan affected by the disaster accounted for only 3-4 per cent of national industrial output, but factories elsewhere were affected by an interruption in the supply chain.

It may well be, as Tom Goodenough argued here earlier, that Boris Johnson is secretly delighted at the Court of Appeal’s ruling that is was illegal for the government to give the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow without taking into account their own climate policy. The Prime Minister had, after all, promised his constituents that he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway. He now has the cover of a court decision to shield him from the Conservative party’s pro-runway elements if the project ends up being dropped. But the Prime Minister should be extremely concerned about the wider implications of this judgement. It is yet one more example of power draining away from elected government in Parliament, towards the courts.