I think the UK Government seemed very reactionary (lagging), to swerve any unnecessary social impacts. What actually happened, is the slight delay caused massive impacts.
Going in early and hard was always going to give better results, but "waiting for the science" just gave Covid more time to get a hold.

That and the Prime Minister's total ineptitude in managing a crisis. His solution was to make decisions pi$$ed off his tlt5.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (26 Nov 2023 12.34pm)

I disengage, I turn the page.

Yeah, Sweden.

So different.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The fact that Swedish people are more compliant than British people is in fact quite accurate. If you look at the 'British population' and who obeyed and who didn't then you find that third worldists don't actually fair very well.

Quite an amusing point.

The fact that Britain isn't as compliant is down to people like him.

As for population density..the entire population caught covid regardless...the very fact that Britain is so crowded (something else you have supported) meant lockdowns ended up being a ridiculous unworkable metric anyway it only mattered if you could stop infection, which we couldn't.

What a shocker with an airborne virus....who knew!

The reality is that all the people who were going to die of covid died of it. By doing what you supported you not only plied generational debt onto the unborn (which you don't care about anyway) but increased the number of people who died via excess deaths as the lockdown cure was worst than the disease.

The original pandemic policy, developed by professionals over decades not under political pressure was always the right one.

You supported lies, half truths and make billions for vaccine companies....some of which were amongst the most unethical in the world.

Par for your course.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Nov 2023 8.20pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

What some people conveniently forget is that when Covid first appeared almost nothing was known about it, other than the impact it was having. It’s only now with all the knowledge and data we have accumulated that studies can be made, conclusions reached and lessons learned.

All of history teaches that areas of high population density fare much worse in pandemics than rural areas. That’s a common perception only now being reassessed. Just look at the way people here fled the cities to use their holiday homes and stay with relatives.

What was clear was that places with a well functioning health care system open to all would cope better and result in a lower mortality rate. The idea that all who died would have died regardless of what was done is pure ignorance. Many lives were saved because of effective care.

With the NHS under strain and a prognosis of its collapse if Covid cases overwhelmed it something had to be done to flatten the demand until the vaccines then under development were available. So the strategy of lockdowns was adopted. Which was always going to have consequences and need adjustments as more information became available. It was at a heavy cost but assessed as being the least worst of the choices available.

That there were voices advocating the use of alternative strategies is hardly surprising. Or that they now think they were right. Or that dissimilar places who adopted different strategies had different results. Only if those strategies were tested in our circumstances could any conclusions be drawn. They weren’t. We took our decisions in our circumstances after reviewing the evidence available at the time.

Now we are holding an enquiry to see if there are lessons to be learned. Which it seems there are, but they seem unlikely to be that the strategy implicit in the “Great Barrington Declaration “ should automatically be followed should another unknown virus emerge. The reasoning behind that strategy has been so widely condemned that it seems very unlikely to be regarded as acceptable in any future circumstances. The lessons seem more likely to be about the state of preparedness and the need for decisive actions.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

If we're ever in the same situation hopefully the advisory group will include some wider advice, economists and other medical experts for example to caution on the likely effects of decisions taken.

You don’t think the Treasury was involved in this? I am pretty sure they had a lot to say. The SAGE group invited opinion from a very wide spectrum.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.