The coronavirus crisis is a disaster for many workers. In the United Kingdom, for example, it is often forgotten that prosperity is not built around a handful of respected business titans and big-name companies, many of whom are now apparently lobbying the government for financial support.

Prosperity also depends on the nearly 5 million self-employed and 6 million small businesses that have relatively hidden economic lives beyond public view and with little influence on politics. The pandemic is a dramatic reminder of their contribution. They are the most endangered today. However, traditional instruments cannot reach them. Changes in interest rates do not help self-employed workers who are faced with fading incomes and lack of paid sick leave.

Financial aid packages do not save the huge number of restaurants, theaters, cafes, pubs, and shops that will continue to monitor the collapse of their businesses over the coming days. Big infrastructure investments do not support these small businesses – 99% of all UK companies – whose pockets are not deep enough to survive the collapse in the coming months.

In that case, the time has come for something completely different – Universal Basic Income. Cash for everyone, without conditions, can support these people and their families. Allocating 1,000 GBP per month to anyone in the UK will cause a direct and immediate burst of financial relief for millions who are unable to make ends meet.

Many analysts see the concept of Universal Basic Income with skepticism. In recent years, the popularity of this scheme has increased. Many see it as a necessary response to the threat of automation, a way of helping displaced workers who may find themselves out of work and income in the future.

The appearance of the coronavirus has changed their attitude. The robots may not have taken all the jobs yet, but the pandemic is sharply reducing the demand that existing ones rely on. Andrew Young, the Democratic presidential candidate who built his campaign on the promise of Universal Basic Income, said it well on Twitter: “I should have talked about the pandemic, not the automation”.

The Universal Basic Income may be feasible. For example, handing out 1,000 GBP per person would cost the government around 66 billion GBP per month – just part of the bailout of nearly 500 billion GBP the UK needed to stay afloat during the financial crisis in 2008. And that would only be a temporary measure.

The government says the UK will witness half of all cases of coronavirus 3 to 4 weeks before and after the peak of the infection; 95% of cases – within a period of 9 to 10 weeks. We can still hope that this will be a short-term crisis that requires only temporary, though extraordinary.

Universal Basic Income is politically feasible and not only in the UK. It emerges as one of those rare political proposals that force the political spectrum to look back on itself, with people from opposite ends reaching an agreement.

Jason Ferman, President of the Economic Council for President Barack Obama, said: “Congress should send you 1,000 USD – and another 500 USD for each of your children as soon as possible”. And Steven Mnuchin, the US Treasury secretary, is now “considering sending checks to Americans immediately”.

Although Universal Basic Income like this may sound a bit primitive, its power is in its simplicity. No need for complex testing and monitoring, no cumbersome bureaucracy. In the UK, getting 1,000 GBP each is so easy. As a result, we can deal with the situation quickly. If the peak of the crisis comes after weeks, this is a benefit that should not be underestimated.

In 1942, amid the devastation of World War II, William Beveridge published “Social Security and the Allied Service”, transforming the lives of ordinary people in times of great crisis, leading to the creation of the National Health Service and the expansion of National Security into the United Kingdom.

“The revolutionary moment in world history”, he writes on the homepage, “is a time for revolutions, not for repair”.

The current crisis is another. Just like Beveridge, we must respond to it with imagination and eminence. It is not enough to push existing measures. We have to be far bolder.