Boris accused of breaking the law again

[Ivor Windybottom]

Fair enough, I was wrong. But the point still stands - lockdowns could have been targeted at whatever small percentage were at risk.

All those track & trace staff could have been doing something useful like sorting out online shopping by phone for the oldies too, instead of sitting doing nothing while being paid.

 

[Brigadier]

lockdowns could have been targeted at whatever small percentage were at risk.

What "small" percentage?

BAME.
Old.
Fat.
Diabetics.
COPD.
CV conditions.
Et al.

Oh. I also forgot: general anaesthesia was also not advised (except in emergency and/or otherwise life-threatening cases), as outcomes for anyone with the 'rona were much worse (my own surgery was delayed until the pandemic waned).

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

The vast majority of the working-age population did not have pre-existing conditions and were not at high risk.

It could have all been analysed at the time and a sensible cut-off arrived at. E.g. perhaps all under-50s could have carried on regardless, while making those at risk aware that they should restrict their movements or isolate if necessary. Sensible targeted measures could have been arrived at, based on the evidence that was available at the time.

Instead we got the lockdown, which was about saving every life possible regardless of the cost. An honest cost-benefit analysis simply did not happen. A lot of that cost will turn out to be deaths and suffering that were caused by that lockdown. They're still happening - undiagnosed and untreated conditions, poverty, distress etc. I'm still seeing people driving their cars wearing a mask, the public were terrified by the stupid propaganda.

 

[IT Minion]

Fair enough, I was wrong. But the point still stands - lockdowns could have been targeted at whatever small percentage were at risk.

All those track & trace staff could have been doing something useful like sorting out online shopping by phone for the oldies too, instead of sitting doing nothing while being paid.

No, that is also wrong.

The idea of building a wall around care homes and anyone over 50 and male, or 60 and female (roughly 30% of the population) has been suggested many times. It was attempted many times. And then it failed many times because COVID is incredibly infectious and no one lives in a perfect bubble.

Look at the attempts by professional sports teams in the US, with all the money in the world, who tried to operate bubbles. It failed and had huge impacts to not only the team but also everyone involved with the team.

Track and trace was a massive disappointment but that's another story.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Those tired old arguments. Rubbishing one option as being imperfect, while ignoring the glaring issues with the other. You're falsely implying that lockdown saved everyone, obviously it didn't.

No option was perfect. The question is whether we chose the right imperfect option, based on the evidence that was then available. My suggestion is that evidence was deliberately ignored due to the government wanting a failsafe lockdown, while completely ignoring the massive consequences of it, which we're still living with and many will be for their lifetimes, some of which will have been shortened by it.

 

[IT Minion]

Virtually every country in the world did lockdowns of some form. The countries that did the least lockdowns had the highest death rates.

But perhaps you know better than every medical body in the world did about what the best course of action was in late Feb 2020. What jaw dropping arrogance.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Hindsight is easy.

I am happy to criticse this government, about most things too.

But looking around the world at the time, I think they reacted pretty much like everywhere else. The criticism as i see it, is they should have acted, not reacted.

Covid was an unknown at the time, and all they did was to create time and space to learn how to cope

 

[Brigadier]

while completely ignoring the massive consequences of it,

I doubt they did.


Just because your considerations differ from theirs, doesn't mean they didn't make any in the first place.

 

[gant]

Sweden bucked the trend on lockdowns with a positive outcome.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Sweden bucked the trend on lockdowns with a positive outcome.

Sweden had made preparations for a pandemic in previous years, with the Public Health Agency of Sweden designated as the responsible body in a disease outbreak but without the authority to pass laws itself. In the Swedish political system, the cabinet with legislative authority is mandated to follow the advice of government agencies (in this case the Public Health Agency) and very rarely overrules this, as ministerial governance is prohibited under the Basic Laws of Sweden. Crisis management in Sweden instead follows the "principle of responsibility".


Looks like Sweden had made preparations for such an event. Pity we hadn't. I believe we were advised that there should have been something in place, in case of something like it happening

 

[gant]

Britain had its own preparations for pandemics and Boris was going down the herd immunity route till the msm media got on the case, effectively tying his hands as the ambulance chasers would have been on his case.

 

[IT Minion]

Sweden bucked the trend on lockdowns with a positive outcome.

It didn't, but you probably didn't read the follow up assessments to find that out.

Their internal review found they should have locked down earlier (they did lockdown formally in the end) and had a worse outcome as a result.

 

[gant]

What did these assessments conclude?

 

[denso13]

till the msm media got on the case, effectively tying his hands

Is that what happened with all the other lockdown countries as well?

 

[gant]

The lockdown countries involved did all fall into line in a similar fashion interestingly.