We told you.

Exactly, the fact that the decision for the initial lockdown was dithered upon and should’ve happened much earlier, could easily have meant lower infections and less time in lockdown. Let’s not forget Johnson was too busy writing his book to attend the first few Cobra meetings, and the findings of the report/enquiry into the pandemic that hit Africa so badly (sorry forgot name of disease and report) were ignored

 

An article in the Torygraph will only convince the converted.

 

Absolutely unadulterated, utter garbage. Just absolute nonsense. We were, correctly, stating that a protective ring should be put around the most vulnerable.

 

Says someone who uses the Torygraph to back their OPINION.

 

"BuT iT'S OnLy a StOrY fRoM ToRy PaPeRS"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-lockdown-effects-diabetes-disease-b2148452.html

 

How's the Independent suit you?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-lockdown-effects-diabetes-disease-b2148452.html

 

You only linked it to a Tory rag. It is still far from convincing anyway. Yet still nothing is mentioned about this Govts dithering and deliberate non- address of the situation in the early days. Oh, and congratulations you’ve managed to post another attention-seeking, I am right all along’ post. This thread will no doubt drag for days and days as previous ones do, but the same outcome will,occur, no- one will be convinced

 

Still nothing there only a lot if Maybe’s.

 

Whereas the claims that lockdown saved lives and the actual case for lockdowns at the time are full of properly underpinned and well proven numbers weighted against a potential risk assessment and definitely not just regurgitations of wild claims from notorious dickheads like Ferguson?

Here's that famous Tory rag the Guardian talking about the 25k extra deaths lockdown will have caused simply through alcoholism alone.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...se-could-cause-25000-excess-deaths-in-england

 

Lol,

 

Still nothing about my point about the early and prompt lockdown, that should’ve happened.Anyway I’m done with this now, personally too painful a subject having lost my dad through it, to be feeding your ego.

 

We locked down two weeks after Italy, the first country to fully lockdown. There was no discernable difference in death rates overall between the two. It made no difference. This myth that "orrr, if only we'd acted two weeks early" is possibly the most risible, most obvious dollop of monkey spunk in the sea of utter simian jizz that is the advice of "Independent" SAGE.

 

I do not normally comment on these posts but having trawled through everyone"s posts I have come to the conclusion that hindsight is a truly wonderful thing & how people just post to score points on a subject where many of us have lost friends & loved ones well frankly I find it distasteful & this is my one & only comment I am contributing.

 

There is a big difference in having an opinion and voicing it, and being so conceited that you rudely disregard anything that counters your argument and look for any evidence possible to back your view after the event.

This is very hemsy/higgy esque.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that less people would have died if we hadn’t locked down.

There is evidence that lockdown was flawed, badly handled and has consequences.

But had we not locked down, how many more (or less) people would have died?

It’s very easy to say we should have done what I said all along when the outcome isn’t perfect. There was never going to be a good outcome to this situation.

You can opine - but can’t state - that your way would have been better. You or I or anybody will never know.

So to come out with this post - and the previous one which talks about public enquiries and making sure it can’t be allowed to happen again - it’s all a bit rich. If there was another pandemic of a different disease or virus let’s say in ten years, what anecdotal evidence do you have that your method would have a more positive outcome? Other than it would inconvenience you less?

I hated lockdown. I felt imprisoned. I’m still not 100% sure if it was fully necessary.

But I do have friends who lost parents and grandparents to covid. How many more would have been lost had we not taken action? And, if you advocate ‘different’ action - Which people needed to be ‘ringfenced’ - and would it have been legal to lockdown only certain factions? It would likely have been advisory rather than mandatory if it was only persons of a certain age or with certain conditions required to stay home as it would have been deemed discriminatory otherwise.

I have a very good friend who’s mum is battling cancer and experienced no delays in diagnosis or treatment - though I know this isn’t always the case.

Lockdown most definitely has consequences, not all of which seen. It wasn’t done perfectly and was flawed. And I’d love to bash this useless government over every single thing it does.

But what other choice did they have which you can categorically state would have worked better? Had they not systematically picked apart and ruined the nhs in the previous decade, then maybe they could have taken more targeted rather than generic action.

 

We have businesses in Europe and we took the warnings from our colleagues in Europe who were ahead of us in the wave, this helped us prepare the business for what was coming and mitigate the risk and bring new products to the market that helped our customers combat the Virus in a work environment.
Add to this every NHS trust was told to buy PPE in advance to prepare, some did some didn’t. The point being if the Govt had foresight to do this, not being proactive enough sooner is arguably their biggest mistake.