‘When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions.” So it seems with the economy. The world economy was slowing down before the onset of the virus, with many analysts forecasting a recession. The British economy was being held back not only by the repercussions of that, but also by the impact on business confidence in general and investment in particular of the mere prospect of Brexit.

Then came the classic Yes Minister compromise: we officially left the European Union on 31 January, but we had a stay of execution – remaining in it for another year, but forfeiting, in yet another act of needless self harm, the right to have any say in its governance.

We did not forfeit, however, such rights of membership as the ability to participate in a common EU purchasing scheme for ventilators. An impressive Reuters report noted on 7 April that “between 13 February and 30 March, Britain missed a total of eight conference calls or meetings about the coronavirus between EU heads of state or health ministers – meetings that Britain was still entitled to join”.

Even his worst enemies – and until recently I suppose that I could have been among them – were concerned about the recent threat to the prime minister’s life. It turns out that, mercifully, he did not have to be put on a ventilator.

But one question many people are asking is: will the combination of Johnson’s life-threatening experience, and the government and public’s experience of the horrors of this plague, eventually produce a change for the better in the approach to economic and social policy? Certainly, the media and my correspondence are brimming with such speculation.

Let us not forget: the Johnson cabinet is packed with extreme rightwing Brexiters. Are these people going to alter the preconceptions with which they entered office?

The conclusion I come to is that there must be something to this burgeoning feeling that the crisis portends a time for capitalism to adopt its “human face”. This is what happened after the 1939-45 war, when the social settlement implemented by the two Attlee governments of 1945-51 was broadly accepted by the subsequent Conservative administrations – hence the neologism “Butskellism”, coined by the Economist during the 1950s to capture the consensus in economic and social policies between Labour’s Hugh Gaitskell (chancellor, 1950-51, and opposition leader, 1955-63) and the Conservatives’ Rab Butler (chancellor, 1951-55).

Certainly, Sir Keir Starmer, the new leader of the Labour party, seems to be making a good start back in this direction.

And the Tories? As everyone now knows, we are experiencing an economic catastrophe that makes the Great Depression of 1929-32 and the banking crisis of 2007-09 look like mere rehearsals. If the whole scene were not so tragic, it would be amusing that a rightwing chancellor were presiding over such a massive holding operation for the economy. But although he has been much praised for promising “whatever it takes”, it is painfully obvious that in practice Rishi Sunak’s rescue operation is full of holes and that many businesses are suffering.

Now, let us be clear: this latest development is not so much an economic crisis as the result of a deliberate, if reluctant, act of government in response to a health crisis. Output has not suddenly collapsed in response to an adverse movement of the business cycle. Output, services and jobs have been shut down by government decree, in the interest of public health and future wellbeing, and the intention is to try to restore something approaching normality – a new, more just normality – when circumstances allow.

Meanwhile, there is a large gap between those who like to think that the virus is “the great equaliser” and reality. As always, the most fragile and exposed, of citizens and people, will be the hardest hit.

My worry about the optimistic view that the time has come for a sea-change in policy is that the postwar consensus stemmed not just from what the Attlee governments did, but, crucially, from the preparations that were made from an early stage by the wartime coalition.

To my mind, the present situation is serious enough to warrant, not a national government – memories of the 1930s are still etched into the Labour party’s soul – but a coalition. Alas, I fear this is an unlikely prospect.

I also worry that although it is blindingly obvious that the de facto exit from the EU should be delayed (and, ideally, the whole idea rescinded), the signs are that the Brexiters are determined to press ahead. And you can be sure that they will blame the certain damage on the virus. It’s a bad business.