Countries worldwide have implemented strict controls on movement in response to the covid-19 pandemic. The aim is to cut transmission by reducing close contact (box 1), but the measures have profound consequences. Several sectors are seeing steep reductions in business, and there has been panic buying in shops. Social, economic, and health consequences are inevitable. Box 1: Social distancing measures • Advising the whole population to self-isolate at home if they or their family have symptoms • Bans on social gatherings (including mass gatherings) • Stopping flights and public transport • Closure of "non-essential" workplaces (beyond the health and social care sector, utilities, and the food chain) with continued working from home for those that can • Closure of schools, colleges, and universities • Prohibition of all "non-essential" population movement • Limiting contact for special populations (eg, care homes, prisons) No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints

The work has helped to further understanding of the underlying causes of Glasgow's and Scotland's high levels of excess mortality. The implications for policy include the need to address three issues simultaneously: to protect against key exposures (e.g. poverty) which impact detrimentally across all parts of the UK; to address the existing consequences of Glasgow's and Scotland's vulnerability; and to mitigate against the effects of future vulnerabilities which are likely to emerge from policy responses to contemporary problems which fail sufficiently to consider and to prevent long-term, unintended social consequences.

WCS mortality trends compare badly with other, similar, post-industrial regions of Europe, including regions in Eastern Europe which tend to be characterized by higher levels of poverty. This finding challenges any simplistic explanation of WCS's poor health being caused by post-industrial decline alone, and begs the question as to what other factors may be at work.

The evidence base for regeneration activities is limited but they have substantial potential to contribute to improving population health. Better quality evidence is available for there being positive health impacts from housing-led regeneration programmes involving refurbishment and specific housing improvements. There is also some evidence of the potential harms of regeneration activities, including social stratification (gentrification and residualisation) and the destabilisation of existing community organisations. Broader labour market and housing policy approaches are also likely to be important as a context for understanding impacts. Regeneration programmes require careful design, implementation and evaluation if they are to contribute to improved health and reduced health inequalities.

No amount of positive spin can detract from the numbers. The UK has not done well in the pandemic, whether measured in terms of mortality, 1 economic performance, 2 or social protection. This should not have happened. In 2019, the UK came in second place in the Global Health Security Index. 3 Yet, when the pandemic arrived, decision making was confused and slow, 4 existing structures were sidelined, and new ones, exemplified by the "eye wateringly expensive" test and trace system, 5 were flawed by design, paying inadequate attention to the needs of those isolating. 6 Weak social safety nets offered little support. 7