this is bbc news. the headlines: the uk government has set out a "conditional plan" to gradually ease the anti—virus lockdown in england. those who cannot work from home will now be actively encouraged to return to their workplaces but should avoid public transport. from wednesday, people will be able to do unlimited exercise outdoors. the measures won't apply in scotland, wales or northern ireland. leaders in those parts of the uk say people should continue to remain in their homes — except for essential reasons. the leader of the opposition labour party said the government's announcement ‘raises as many questions as it answers‘. south korea's president has warned of a prolonged war against coronavirus after the authorities reported a spike in new cases. on sunday the authorities confirmed thirty four infections linked to nightclubs in the capital, seoul. the country had begun to ease some its social distancing

now on bbc news, it's dateline london. hello and welcome to dateline london. i'm carrie gracie. this week — another roller coaster of hopes and fears. this weekend, europe marked the 75th anniversary of the end of world war ii on european soil. this week lockdown, grieving, paralysis, not part of the original plans for celebration. a lot of fighting talk has been deployed in relation to covid—19 and a lot of talk about solidarity, too but are there real lessons on fighting or solidarity that the second world war generation can teach us now?

my guests on socially distant screens are guardian columnist. and a journalist from the new york times. welcome to both of you. and in the studio, jo coburn, presenter of politics live. would you start us off, nesrine, the uk this past week has reached the grim distinction of being the european country with the highest death toll, how did we get here? there is a short history and a long history. the short history is, obviously, the months and weeks of indecision and paralysis on behalf of the government on their quarantine and lockdown decisions very late and way behind the curve. there is a longer history as well which is, i think, a decade at least of austerity that has made it quite hard for the nhs to cope, privatisation of care homes, which means they've also just been allowed to descend into the sort ofjaws of the virus without much assistance

from the government. so, it is a combination of indecision on the part of this quite new government that was oriented towards brexit but then had to deal with the real more practical issue of the pandemic. but also the defunding and hollowing out of public services in the uk, which means the country wasn't well prepared at all. jo, you spend all your time looking at uk politics — how much of a problem is this headline number, the worst death toll in europe, or are there effective defences and is the country is still united in solidarity around lockdown and how to get out of this mess?

it is a problem because it is a large number. the government keeps saying every day when it shows that chart and it compares the uk deaths from covid—19 to other countries and the united states. it says it is too early to make clear and accurate international comparisons. now, it says the reasons for that is you cannot compare apples and pears, and they have two lines of defence. one is about how deaths are actually counted. the uk government will say it has been very transparent about how it has counted, counted in hospitals and care homes and in the community. when it looks at a country like italy, which says part of its official figures it counts the deaths in her care homes, the question the government would pose is — how extensive has testing been in those care homes in order tojudge what the death rate has been? there is also a question about deaths in the community. some of these problems are also the case here in the uk, and isn't that easy to count deaths in the community because if you haven't been tested

you don't know perhaps you might have died of covid—19. looking at that, they put those figures in terms of how everyone is counting them on one side and, with that, they would like the focus to be on what they call excess mortality rates. can they escape the verdict we have heard from nesrine? they can't escape it, but if you look at the figure, over 31,000, that is the highest death toll in europe as we stand here today but what they will say is that isn't the whole picture. so that verdict that nesrine offered on a bit of complacency, incompetent government, can they escape that? not completely. they will deny the charge they were too slow to lock —down, that they were too slow to actually get testing going at the sort of pace it is now, but we know from boris johnson's appearance

at prime minister's questions in the houses of parliament this week, he admitted in a rather long answer that actually, they had to abandon the track and tracing mechanism in about mid—march because the uk didn't have the capacity. and when you look at those graphs and you look at those other countries, it's very hard to get away from the fact that germany is the standout country, and there is praise and has been praise from ministers here saying, well, they have a very flourishing diagnostics industry. and you can have a deep discussion about why we don't have that to the same degree. they also say the rate of transmission at that point at the end of march was such that widespread tracing and tracking in the community wouldn't have been worth it. now they want to go back to that because infection rates are falling but they haven't fallen far enough. the other real brews and weak point for the government is on care homes. and i think the epidemic in care homes, which the government has struggled to get a grip on, deaths are rising as they are coming down in hospitals, they are still rising in care homes, and i think the charge

there is a much more potent one. let's go from the medical to the economic point. the other huge headline of the past week is we are facing in the uk the biggest recession in 300 years. and the partial recovery of the bank of england talks about is dependent on a lot of factors. these kinds of headlines that invoke history, they are becoming commonplace that we are meeting challenges or seeing drops in output we haven't seen in centuries. it is the job of the government and the bank of england to make forecasts to try to model the way ahead and they're doing that, but it is predicated on the unknowns that are part of these uncharted waters we are in with this pandemic. it is about whether the lockdown can be eased injune — that's one of the conditions it poses. i don't know how much it actually knows how to predict human behaviour because a lockdown can be eased

but whether we ourselves, as individuals, want to make the choice of going out again to, say, bars and restaurants, doing the activities we as social creatures tend to do, or whether we will shy away from that because of the fear of contraction, is still anyone‘s guess so the model and forecast say that hopefully by the second half of next year the british economy will have recovered, it will have gotten back on the same footing it was before the pandemic broke out, i think it is at this point anyone‘s guess. talk us through the personality of the prime minister, jo, just back to work after his almost fatal brush with the virus, new father, etc — how much is all of the pressure from the economic and medical challenges, how much is all of that falling on one man's shoulders?

it does fall on his shoulders. we have a system of collective responsibility, first among equals and so on, but when you remember when he was ill, in hospital, in intensive care, there was a sense, maybe it was perceived or real, that no major decisions or change to the lockdown, and it would have been too early anyway, could be made without the prime minister being at his desk. there might have been a holding pattern. everything was functioning but to some extent nothing would change that dramatically until he was back at his desk at number10. there's been a huge debate about whether he is a changed man from his experiences, in terms of his approach to easing lockdown, in terms of his approach to the sort of country we will be economically, as henry was talking about. those sorts of thoughts and principles are now perhaps not quite as gung—ho as people might have assumed somebody with the personality of boris johnson would actually approach and pursue. so, really, all the information we are getting, far from going for any real major change when he gives his address to the nation, i think these will be very incremental changes. the government is obsessed with what they call the reproductive r rate of transmission. it has to be below one and they always say we are following the science, the guidance of the experts but,

in the end, although there isn't a trade—off, as they'd see between the economy and lives, it is lives versus lives. they've got to keep that reproduction rate below one before they can do anything substantial in terms of easing lockdown —— the government is obsessed with what they call the reproductive r rate of transmission. it has to be below one and they always say we are following the science, the guidance of the experts but, in the end, although there isn't a trade—off, as they'd see between the economy and lives, it is lives versus lives. they've got to keep that reproduction rate below one before they can do anything substantial in terms of easing lockdown because they don't want a second peak. that is what they're trying to avoid beyond anything else, and making sure the nhs isn't overwhelmed, that there will be spare capacity which they would point to another line of defence about how they have handled this crisis, is that it hasn't been overwhelmed. so, borisjohnson has this momentous

decision to make about — it is about messaging, too because people are fearful about going back, maybe not to the park and exercising, but about going on the transport system, going back to work and sending their kids to school — he's got tojudge that moment. i want to hear from you, nesrine on how you see this shaping up in the next couple of months. like henry said, it is anyone‘s guess but what i think is very interesting is the sort of new attitude the government have. they went from not taking it seriously at all to taking it extremely seriously, and trying to play catch up. so, in essence... there was a measure announced there is going to be quarantine of travellers coming into the uk for two weeks,

which is essentially two months behind everyone else. the airports are still open. and, so, what i think will happen over the next two months, and, again, this isjust a guess, things that should have happened weeks and weeks ago will happen over the next few weeks, which means there will be almost a two—tier pandemic response. one where people will be trying to find ways to come out of the lockdown, and in other instances trying to plug all the gaps that were left by the delayed reaction two, three months ago. henry, let's broaden this out to a different country, the united states, we are six months away from the presidential election — we've got the biggest death count in the world in the us. and we've got a jobless count which is worse than at any time since the 1930s now. what on earth can president trump do with that as he faces a battle with the virus, a battle with an economy in such trouble, and a battle with a democratic rival? there is no question this pandemic

has completely upended the political capital going into november's election, both for trump and also for the senators, particularly republicans trying to ride on his coat—tails. this has all been scrambled by coronavirus. trump won in 2016 based on his promise to revive what was actually already a pretty fine and healthy economy at the time. before the pandemic hit, it is true unemployment was down to 3.5%, a historic low, and economic growth was happening. but now we've seen unemployment has now gone to 20.5 million, 14.7%, and these are not the numbers trump wants to have going into heavy campaigning that lies ahead. that's why we see him already

beginning to encourage friendly states to try to open up, even at the cost of potentially lives that will be taken by the coronavirus. his strategy, as all presidents have, not unique to him, is to deflect blame, to find other villains he can place the blame on for what has been happening, whether it is china, the who, the democrats, that's all part of the game. he has also put himself on a wartime footing, calling himself a wartime president, which is well and good despite the fact that he opens himself to criticism from those that would say, 'are you not a wartime president underestimating the strength of this enemy, who said this enemy would be vanquished by april the ist and people would be back to their normal lives?‘ this will come back to haunt him in the months ahead. he is now saying it's the worst attack, as he is saying, since pearl harbor. using that second world war language. absolutely. and that way he can drape himself in that rally around the flag atmosphere, which there is in the us and the uk, too. people who really want to pull together for national welfare.

but again he exposes himself to criticism as being the commander in chief in this global struggle, in the national struggle, to how well he has performed and whether he has actually pursued a battle plan that has resulted in more deaths, than were necessary. nesrine, on the point on the economy, president trump says the jobs will be back. will they? again, i'm not in the business of making any predictions that are anyone‘s guess, but it is really hard to imagine that happening. there was a good way of describing what is happening right now is that the pandemic is an urban forest fire. i mean, every day we hear of small businesses shutting down, people being furloughed. once businesses are unwound, it's hard to put them back together. they are the results of years and years of loans and hard work and financial engineering. so, to just assume that this infrastructure of self—employment to small businesses to large businesses will just,

like a flat pack, be put back together after the pandemic is really unrealistic. what we might see is a reshaping of the economy so that some areas that were underserved or underutilised before might flourish. if, like henry said, we don't know how humans will behave. maybe there will be a huge renaissance in going on holiday because people have been locked down for so long, there might be a leisure and hospitality boom afterwards but it all is contingent on, a, how humans behave, b, how much assistance businesses get, and the third is just consumption. everything hinges on consumption and consumerism and people spending money. if that happens really slowly and in a staggered fashion, a spiky fashion, jobs won't come back overnight. which is a bit like the conversation we were having about the uk.

henry, you wanted to come in. yes. just also wanted to say, this is another danger point for trump in the sense those that have been put out of work by the pandemic, for example in the hospitality industry and other industries, are not necessarily those who are most aligned with his base, who include a lot of blue—collar workers and are not the fortunate ones, who all they need to do to continue working is to have a laptop, a strong wi—fi connection, and their home—made lattes by their side. the blue collar workers will be watching to see how the economy comes back and whether trump will be at the forefront of that. let's turn to henry, something you said about looking for villains to blame. president trump and his secretary of state talked about enormous evidence that the virus started or spread from a wuhan laboratory. we don't have an enormous amount of time to talk about this but the chinese have said it didn't. why hasn't beijing put this to rest by inviting the who to organise a big independent, international investigation to come and just

investigate it to the roots and just have done with it? well, i think that is asking why a tiger doesn't change its stripes, really. this is not a regime that invites outside scrutiny not certainly on its own soil. it's aggressively battling back any narrative that says it was in the wrong on how it handled this pandemic, trying to really control the story that's out there, saying that what they did was absolutely correct and is what equipped the rest of the world to take proper measures, if the rest of the world had heeded what china had done. they're not going allow who they fear will be politically motivated investigators on chinese soil to check out highly sensitive areas, such as this virology institute in wuhan. i think that isjust not in the nature of this regime. nesrine, picking up on other things that are not in the nature of our times, i suppose, it is hard enough to modify chinese behaviour when the west or the international community

is united but if it's disunited and without clear leadership, what chances do you see? not much. i mean, what's clear so far is that no—one — no—one — has managed to resist politicising this virus. so, it has succumbed to not only domestic national politics but international politics as well. it's fallen in between the us—china beef. it's now also being utilised by strongmen in africa and the middle east. it's also become a way to frame the virus as something exogenous, this is one of the things trump is doing, and borisjohnson is doing in the uk, which is why the world war ii language is so helpful, is that this is either something that has been brought in by foreigners or that it is an external enemy. so... the sort of — the language used around the virus,

the language used around how the virus came to us has been either to frame it as the fault of other foreigners who have come in, or framed it as an act of god we can do nothing about. so, i don't see any solidarity at all in the near future. and if anything, i think it will be used to drive more populist politics domestically and drive more wedges between countries where there was already existing conflict before. and, jo, just before we leave the china investigation issue altogether, the european union talking about investigation, the australians. i mean, it leaves borisjohnson, who we have explained as a number of challenges on his plate, with a difficult post—brexit challenge. so, how do you square the circle on china, the bold new trade partnerships versus talking tough on issues like this? well, it'll be fascinating to see exactly how the boris johnson

government deals in terms of its relationship between the uk and china. i mean, picking up on what both nesrine and henry have said about this is that the language, some of the rhetoric from conservative politicians, particularly, and also you have to remember it wasn't that long ago when david cameron and george osborne, and theresa may were embracing china. they wanted to embed and entrench diplomatic and economic ties with china. now, of course, the pandemic is here. there was talk of a golden era. completely. we were in the middle of it. but even before coronavirus had really broken out across europe, there was already a suspicion from a small but significant group of conservative politicians, who didn't like the idea at all. in fact, they were absolutely opposed to the idea of the chinese telecoms giant huawei would be involved in any way

in the 5g network. now, that was a headache, but it was outvoted. and to some extent there were rumblings if you like on conservative backbenchers. but now you have the foreign secretary saying things like it will not be business as usual with china. we have another senior conservative politician saying, actually, there may be a reckoning. there's been a china research group set up within the conservative party to look at a reset of relations between the uk and china. i would add a little bit of caution. this is rhetoric. these are words. they're not actions yet. it may turn out to be so if there is this investigation. and interestingly, you mentioned the post—brexit world. they've got this dilemma, the uk government, because there will be a different relationship with the eu. can really afford to shun china in any shape, sense, or form when they will have to try and navigate a way

between the us and china? they want china to remain an international player. they want them to be part of the international scene so they may have to watch their tone a little bit if they want to think about our post—economic relationship when trade might be very, very difficult and not very certain, depending what happens with the coronavirus. another challenge in the in—tray. we're running out of time. nesrine, you're talking to us from cairo, can you just give us a quick insight because we haven't talked about north africa very much on this programme over the course of the virus. give us an insight into how egypt is coping and north africa is coping. it's really interesting. the story in africa as a whole has been interesting. when the pandemic started, there was a lot of fear and completely legitimate concern that the continent would be overwhelmed and generally

the countries of the south would be overwhelmed where there are very few ventilators, capacity is very poor on the continent. my own birth country of sudan has such a small number of ventilators and they kind of circulate around the country. so, what happened was a pre—emptive shutdown. so, if you compare what happened in places like egypt and sudan and north africa in general, to what happened in the uk, is that they shut down way earlier. like, airports were shut down, curfews, police and troops on the street making sure people are not violating the curfew. and that came from a position of extreme caution because authorities knew that the healthcare system could not withstand a coronavirus pandemic explosion. but what has happened is it looks like and fingers crossed the other shoe won't drop, the cases have been relatively calm if you compare them

to europe, relatively small. and the peaks of the pandemic across the continent have also been relatively flat. now, that's not to say there haven't been hundreds and thousands of deaths all over the continent and the south in general, but it does not seem to be going down the route people expected when it first started. now, the downside of that is most of these countries have authoritarian presidents and authoritarian systems that mean people can be, sort of, subordinated into submission. there's none of this pesky democratic consensus—making that there is in the uk or in the us. but it does seem that, overall, the attitude was responsible. it was pre—emptive and it was really cautious. south africa in particular has been a standout case in this regard. in how quickly they scrambled and moved when the pandemic struck. fascinating insight, nesrine.

we are going to have to leave that thought because we have one minute left, in which i want to do what i promised the audience we would do at the start, which is to look at what lessons we have to learn from the second world war generation. henry, you start us off. i think they showed us that you could get through a national and international calamity. and after they did so, they felt it was a time they could reset the terms of society. it wasn't just about winning the war, it was also about winning the peace and deciding what kind of a nation britain would be thereafter, which indeed created the national health service that saved the life of our prime minister. so, i would hope that after this the british, the brits take a look at their society and decide what kind of new footing they want to be on. nesrine, a thought from you. i think it's always a flawed exercise to say, you know, what would the second world war generation have done... but tell indulge me in one sentence!

no, thankyou, but i will indulge that thought which as we are all in lockdown, everyone is feeling aggrieved they can't go out and do their things they like to do. but it is a tale to remember, there was a time when these nations suffered for four or five years and we can get through a few months. thank you. and jo. following on from that, it is a bit of a strange juxtaposition, this idea that we had ve day, we're in lockdown and there was a sense of wanting to celebrate and commemorate. and that while in lockdown, there was a feeling of finally, in my case, we could sit out at the front of our house, see our neighbours. there was a slightly party—like atmosphere, maybe it's inappropriate but can actually, all of a sudden, you could see people beyond your family and dear work colleagues like yourself, face—to—face but at two metres distance. and that was actually quite joyous. that is a happy note to end on. thank you all three so much and thank you for watching. that is all from dateline for this week. back next week.

same place, same time. stay safe, bye—bye. biting winds across the north of the uk brought some wintry showers to the northern isles, mainland, northern scotland. the scene here from shetland earlier on. monday itself is going to be a mostly bright or sunny day, but it is going to start of chilly and occasionally we are going to have some showers. so let's get onto the forecast then. the early hours of monday mornings has plenty of clear weather in just the odd shower here and there. the winds will be quite strong, particularly in the north and eastern areas. use the everest across scotland and northern england, even this —— as far south

as wales. so, monday is looking mostly clear for many of us but it is the wind that will really make its presence felt, certainly blowing out of the north and north—east there. the north year coast, it's going to feel a lot colder than 12 degrees and even if it reaches 12 degrees and even if it reaches 12 degrees in london it will only be briefly. most places will not reach double figures.

this is bbc news — welcome if you're watching here in the uk or around the globe. i'm aaron safir. our top stories: the british government announces a plan to end its lockdown — but there's disagreement from scotland, wales and northern ireland. we are taking the first careful steps to modify our measures. the opposition says the plan doesn't answer crucial questions — and trade unions call it a recipe for confusion. south korea is facing a second spike in infections — just a few days after beginning to ease its lockdown.