Yes but why should the country stick to the rules when they were so blatantly ignored by those in charge last time?
Scare tactics won't work because everyone knows they were lied to.

You decide that. It’s though completely irrelevant to the choice between locking down or not, whether or not the politicians who rubber stamped the advice given to them by their professional scientific advisers were irresponsible bags of s***e or not.

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.

Not all of them, but the one leading the government then was, and always was.

Johnson was a disaster whose name history will not regard kindly.

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.

I can understand why WE remains wedded to his lockdown zealotry position as the impact of shutting everything down was (I assume) minimal. From previous posts WE has indicated his age so I am, again assuming age and the number of senior positions he has held when working) that he is in receipt of a Final Salary pension so would be immune to the market shock that lockdowns caused (my Money Purchase scheme fell 40% in a couple of weeks) alongside this WE is also a BTL landlord with local authority tenants (I think) so would continue to receive his rental income. Being retired WE would not have any concerns about businesses shutting down and potentially losing his job and being a more elderly gentleman he would possibly be in the higher risk group should he have caught Covid.

We all make decisions around the personal impact they will cause and this is not to criticise WE but merely to point out that he had no “skin in the game” and was protected from all of the (many) downsides to shutting down the economy so it makes sense for him to continue to support a policy which clearly was the most suitable for him personally even if it had massive impacts on others.

Sure but it's been pointed out before that the effects on someone for whom the financial implications are virtually zero and with access to coastal and or rural walks are different to others in small inner city flats with young children whose education is suffering and redundancy threatening.
None of that mattered in the face of the existential threat the government had created.

Hancock's statement about "scaring the pants off people" by exaggerating the danger. Not denying there was a potential risk but not one severe enough to warrant closing the country down for months.