Yeah, I did. And it is not really a response to my point, and the “article” itself is also wrong in some ways. I feel lazy to explain it, let’s say you are right and I didn’t read it, so you are happy.
Did you see that happen, with your own eyes? My niece was there in the thick of it. She told me what happened. There certainly was a “collapse” of sorts - this was specifically in the UK - but it had nothing whatsoever to do with COVID. It was a combination of perverse decisions that rendered the health service unable to cope, and prevented doctors from treating patients. In no sane world is “the health service is collapsing” a sensible justification for shutting down the health service.
Even if - for the sake of argument - the health service had been genuinely overwhelmed, the simple and obvious solution would be to throw money and resources into relieving the pressure.
A few countries did just leave doctors alone and refrained from creating panic. Broadly speaking, they’re doing better today than the countries that went looneytunes.
UK did that at the beginning, business as usual you know, and then there was a huge problem. Brazil did it too. Not the best outcome. USA at the beginning too. They didn’t know what to do with the coffins.
Anyway, I don’t want to derail, not too much, the conversation.
Well, this isn’t true - it was media/government spin - but if you’d like to assume that it is true for the sake of argument: are you proposing that all the subsequent harms that were inflicted upon the population were necessary, rational, lawful, and ultimately produced a better outcome than - for example - just allowing doctors to do what they ordinarily do, supporting them with money and resources, and telling the general public the truth about (say) COVID risk factors? Do you think the government had the right or duty to harm persons A, B and C in order to (hypothetically) protect person D? Do you think it was reasonable to lie to people, stir up hatred and conflict in the population, and deploy the police to prevent people going about their lawful business?
That the government were forced by circumstance to throw a rational and well-planned pandemic response out the window (they were not “doing nothing” - they were following expert advice devised in saner times) and replace it with an ad-hoc mishmash of panic-driven BS.
Whatever the reason for their about-face, it wasn’t an overwhelming caseload of people with COVID. Look at the ONS statistics.
I have absolutely no idea. It is and will remain a mystery. That, IMO, is precisely why we’re owed an apology (and an explanation).
One theory I read is that the government were under extreme pressure from various unions to “lock down” - specifically the transport union and the teacher’s union. I have no idea if that’s true, but it seems at least plausible, particularly given Johnson’s (alleged) “I have to do what they tell me” remark.
I wouldn’t put it past Winnie, but he’ll be disappointed. He does seem to be trying his best to increase transmission by keeping people together indoors. However, the fatality rate is too low to make any significant difference.