Following a previous article in UNN I was accused on social media of a ‘lazy analysis’ of the phenomenon that is our glorious Prime Minister the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP and his mismanagement of the COVID-19 situation. I was far from complimentary but was taken to task for not being hard enough on him. My view, which has changed since his election, is that he really is an incompetent clown. He has taken far too much account of the views of his two evil advisers Whitty and Vallance and is being blown about far too readily by the breeze of public opinion. My detractor thought I was being too lenient on him and that he really was evil personified, very aware of what he was doing and deliberately leading us to economic ruin and the possible breakdown of British society. It transpires I may have been right, and I continue to maintain, while he knows well what he is doing and its ill effects, he has little understanding of why.
Apparently, at some point, Boris was expressly in favour of a no lockdown strategy. Of course, he denies it but as we all know, the more vehement the denial by a politician, the more likely it is that what he is denying is true. I tend to think that if Robert Preston (of the interminable questions) and Royal-slayer Emily Maitlis are both convinced in addition to Julia Hartley-Brewer of talkRadio that he did say what he is denying, there may be more than a grain of truth. Boris has always had a fragile relationship with the truth. Several of his former wives could confirm that. Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think that if you cannot trust a man with your wife then you cannot trust him with your country.
I am not the first, not alone and I really hope I am not the last to ask why we opted for a COVID-19 strategy that is based on an un-tested method, never previously part of our pandemic strategy. It was guaranteed to have harmful outcomes on individuals and on the economy when we already had methods that were considered effective and were guaranteed not to cause widespread harm. Even within a few weeks of the appearance of the virus in Wuhan, it was clear that the novel coronavirus, while remarkably infectious, killed very few people; those normally killed by similar viruses: the old and those with underlying conditions. That has not changed.
The extent of deaths ‘due to’ as opposed to ‘with’ COVID-19 is known to be overestimated. Thus, we only have estimates at best of the excess deaths which may or may not have occurred due to COVID-19. From the government’s own Office of National Statistics, COVID-19 remains far from being a major cause of death in the UK, even during the pandemic: ‘The coronavirus (COVID-19) did not feature in the top ten leading causes of death for deaths registered in September 2020, in England or Wales; in England, COVID-19 was the 19th most common cause of death and in Wales COVID-19 was the 24th most common cause of death.’ Hindsight is a privileged perspective, but it is clear we panicked and continue to have measures in place reflecting that panic. When a credible group of leading scientists calls for an immediate and total withdrawal of all COVID-19 related restrictions, surely it is time to act. Boris has just the excuse he needs to resurrect his anti-lockdown credentials.
But I doubt he will, hemmed in as he is by the voices of those around him who continue to catastrophise the quotidian. He seems unable to envisage a future for ordinary people where we can do the unexpected: spontaneous and harmless social intercourse; eating out—or eating ‘in’—at a restaurant; getting on a plane; and even going to work. Meantime, the mainstream media fails to report an anti-lockdown demonstration of nearly 100,000 people last weekend in London but misdirects the bulk of the population to be concerned about the décor in Downing Street. As far as I am concerned, the fact that Boris was persuaded by his ‘bidie in’* to spruce up their love lair and expected us to pay for it is just an example of plus ça change. Who ever would have guessed our politicians were ripping us off?
*‘stay in’: an impolite Aberdonian term for an unmarried woman living with a man
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
