Come a crisis, whether war or pestilence, even capitalist governments soon see the necessity of labour force planning and the difference between essential and nonessential sectors.

In his press conferences, the Prime Minister is already using terms like war with the virus, and war economy.

Historically we know that wars, during the 20th century forced the state to step in and directly organise the economy for national objectives. These measure in the 14-18 war subjected the manpower and womenpower of the contending powers to state direction. The recruitment of soldiers and the loss of life on the front created huge labour shortages to which governments responded by the mass mobilisation of women into jobs that had previously been reserved for men.

Ensuring essential supplies became the job as much of the state as of the market. As Neurath remarked it soon became clear that it was physical products, not money, that were vital to survival. Whole non essential sectors were stripped of their labourforce.

The pandemic is producing a similar realisation. The UK government is now, after some delay, being forced to impose measures that result in major sectors of the economy: hospitality, tourism, air transport effectively closing down. These are being closed not because they are non-essential, but because of contagion risk. But in closing schools, it has had to go further and has closed them for all but workers in essential services: the NHS, logistics, food production and distribution, energy and infrastructure.

This set of exemptions is the like the reserved occupations whose members were not conscripted in war.

Just as in war time, all immediate worry about budgetary constraints goes out the window, the Chancellor will spend what it takes, whilst realising that the real problem is not money, but people and resources.

First concern is the provision of equipment, buildings and staff for the NHS. This service stands in the same functional role as the armed services in war, – given absolute priority in resource considerations. Industries are urged to retool to make ventilators not spitfires. Reservists – retired medical staff will be called up, auxiliaries enrolled. As a biographer of Churchill the Prime Minister is very conscious of the analogies.

As James Meadway has pointed out one difference between the current situation and t war is that the attempt is not to maximise production, but to pare it down to the essentials necessary for survival, whilst isolating as much of the population as possible.

At this early stage of the epidemic it is not possible to predict how things will go, other than to say that the human toll will be catastrophic. The delay of the UK government, like that of Italy, in imposing the measures that China introduced in January, means that the UK, like Italy is likely to suffer more deaths than China. And in a situation of exponential growth, more means exponentially more. Not 50% more but ten times as many if we are lucky, a hundred times as many if not.

As the crisis unfolds there will be more drastic change in the relation between the state and the civil economy. Forced nationalistions, state takeovers of failing firms, almost certainly some form of UBI, rationing.

Historically, the black death transformed the relationship between peasant and lord, undermining serfdom and drastically increasing wages. This plague has lower mortality, concentrated among non working age groups, but the psychological trauma of plague like that of total war will transform the ideological field within which politics are played out. The governments and social class held responsible for the death toll will be discredited, and can only hope to escape such discredit by taking ever more radical measures.