Re: Coronavirus
 

When did Andrew describe him in that way?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anybody with a memory knows Herd Immunity, a la, Sweden was originally the plan. Our scientists at the time said that was “the” science.

It was still the case that when forced to go into lockdown it was to “protect the NHS”. Flatten the curve not eradicate infection.

Herd immunity via vaccine or a controlled rate of infection would always be the only way out. A whack a mole policy where local NHS resources were at risk.

If we didn’t have a vaccine we would still have had to open up in some fashion.

I don’t know why the Gov are denying it. The story here is that they are denying it, not that it existed. Bizarre really.

Re: Coronavirus
 

According to the Telegraph today:

‘On March 13 last year – ten days before Britain entered lockdown – Sir Patrick Vallance appeared on the Radio 4 Today programme to explain the Government strategy.

It was, he said, “to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not to suppress it completely. Also because most people, the vast majority of people get a mild illness – to build up some degree of herd immunity as well – so that more people are immune to this disease, and we reduce the transmission. At the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable from it; those are the key things we need to do”.’

I can’t understand the denials either. Remember, there were no vaccines, nor any certainty of getting any at that time. The speed at which infections increased was not expected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Comedy gold OB.

"Not expected". The list of countries locking down, closing schools etc by this point was already extensive.

We were sitting playing the "multi generational households" card. British exceptionalism at its best.

Re: Coronavirus
 

For whatever reason, the scientists thought their strategy would work. Remember, you cannot defeat the virus by lockdowns alone - they only delay the spread. Clearly, they thought hospital admissions could be controlled by protecting those who were susceptible. That may have been the case, but of course they did not protect the vulnerable and allowed infections in care homes get totally out of control. This is where about half the deaths were recorded.

By the way, I am surprised that you find this funny. The scientists were doing their best and so were government ministers in this unprecedented situation. But of course, you are cleverly using your powers of hindsight to vent all your armchair criticisms. You've stolen Sir Kier's clothes.

Tell me, if you had all the answers at the time, and not knowing that we would get vaccines to help us achieve herd immunity, what would your plan have been to release people from lockdown at the end of this incarceration? Where did you think the virus would go, and when?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Obviously I didn't, Papa's just playing to the cheap seats. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I find it absolutely hilarious Old Boy. Consistently wrong throughout but deciding that the Government are infallible and it's only the scientists who are to blame.

You're also asking me to hypothesise for a reality that doesn't exist. Which I will not do. There are plenty of countries managing the situation better than we were without vaccines - both in economic terms and public health terms.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not 'blaming' anyone. This was an unprecedented situation and everyone was doing thdir best to work out a solution. However, it is absolutely appropriate to point out that the government was responding to medical advice. This is something that for some inexplicable reason you fail to acknowledge.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet ignored alternative options. Which is the purpose of Ministers - to make decisions.

I see no reason to allow my mind to descend into your fantasy where hapless politicians sit there and get scientists to tell them what to do. Ministers ask questions, set expectations, and that drives the analysis provided. This is a two way street not the one way street you portray.

As I say, one needn't have had to look far to see alternatives to keeping the economy open and pretending we would be different.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're not getting away with that, jfman. You constantly criticise the government for locking down too late, but it has been explained to you in previous posts why that lockdown did not occur before that time.

So, given that you are of the view (just to be argumentative as usual) that lockdown happened too late and they should have gone for it earlier, I think I'm entitled to an answer from you as to what you would have done next had you been making the decisions.

You don't have that answer, from which I think we are entitled to draw our own conclusions.

---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------

What alternative options?

Re: Coronavirus
 

OB I can safely say that you've explained nothing to me in the hundreds of posts you've made on this subject.

Your fantasy reality in which nobody is working towards vaccines is no reality at all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And what does the benefit of hindsight show?
Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

That if you retreat for 12 days in February 2020 to Chevening and don't attend five COBRA meetings, you lay yourself open to accusations that you were working on a Shakespeare biography instead of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not heard that one before - I’ve heard "economical with the actualité", "Terminological inexactitude", "telling porkies", as euphemisms for mendacity, but not that one…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Blatant evasion of the question.

Best to move on, I guess. Position noted.