Is it time for the Prime Minister to admit that the lockdowns have not worked?

by Anthony Webber-

Before the lockdowns started on March 23^rd last year, there was an alternative pandemic plan, which was not implemented. It may not have been as good as those of some countries in the world, such as South Korea and Taiwan, but at least it was pre-planned and it did focus on proven medical measures.

In retrospect, the Prime Minister must wished he had not led the UK down the path of political, economic and social lockdowns, something completely untried in the world, let alone, British history.

It seems that he succumbed to a moment of panic. China had locked down Wuhan and Italy followed suit.

Except that what Italy did was far worse, and the UK decided to follow the latter’s model.

In different formats, a number of other European countries followed, almost blindly, doing so almost because other countries were, and not with any evidence that they worked.

Boris Johnson was heavily influenced in his decision by his Sage medical and scientific advisers, almost to the point where it seemed they were making the decisions, rather than the government.

He cannot escape from the fact that the lockdowns were political decisions and that MP’s of all parties had an element of trust in the government knowing what it was doing. It basically didn’t, and there have been countless examples of that every month since the lockdowns and all their associated restrictions started well over a year ago.

We now have a situation where even Chris Whitty, a key government adviser, has stated that the UK would need to learn to live with the virus, very much like the country has had to get used to living with the flu.

It has taken a year for that obvious truth to be recognised and this was something those who warned of the dangers of lockdowns, have stated since the beginning, but were told we had it wrong.

In fact thousands of doctors and scientists signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which stated this and an alternative non lockdown strategy, but the Prime Minister ignored this letter which was personally delivered to him last summer.

That was the opportunity for the government to pause the lockdowns and have a re-examination of strategy.

The Prime Minister could have told the nation that a mistake had been made, but with the best of intentions, and that they were going to rectify the situation. This was effectively his “get out of a hole” opportunity, but instead he sadly chose to stick to his failed policies and dig a bigger hole for him and the government.

After over a year of lockdowns, even the Prime Minister has realised that lockdowns are politically, economically, financially and socially untenable.

Government’s way out of lockdowns is a charade

 However, his way out of the situation has been to stretch credibility to its limit.

It is a policy of effectively blaming the public for the length of the lockdowns because they have not abided with government instructions.

The impression created is that if the public “complies” and “obeys”, then the lockdowns will go.

But all that is subject to four tests, on which he is due to make an announcement on Monday.

The first test is on the “infection” rates, (which actually is those who have tested positive for covid-19).

This means virtually nothing because it is only those who actually become seriously ill that really matter.

However, this is all emphasised to create a climate of fear among the public, so that the pandemic becomes a grossly exaggerated one. However, this constant mass testing, instead of just testing those who need it, is costing billions.

The second test is on the covid-19 vaccines roll out.

We now know that this is an almighty red herring.

The mass vaccination programme which has also cost billions, is not going to stop the spread of the virus and it only is said to prevent those vulnerable from becoming seriously ill.

So just why is the government encouraging everyone to have it when they do not need it?

All three vaccines used in the UK have only been approved for emergency use and will not be considered for official licencing for at least a year. Worse still, the Prime Minister is looking at having vaccines and testing certificates and passports for travel and indeed even everyday leisure and entertainment use. This all seems to be part of the Prime Minister’s way out of lockdowns- to make it seem that doing all these things defeats the virus , when there is no evidence to back that up at all.

The third test is the issue of the “new variants.” This is the latest tactic of the government to argue for a slower pace out of lockdowns, when there again is no evidence that lockdowns make any difference to their spread.

In fact viruses tend to have many mutations and variations, and this is why the flu vaccination has to be constantly changed to combat such variations. We now have the government using covid-19 variations as a reason for advocating further vaccinations in September.

Maybe we should do what we do with the flu jab and emphasise its use for those considered vulnerable.

We should certainly not be rushing covid-19 vaccinations to the point where assumed or coerced consent is the norm rather than that of proper informed and considered consent.

With the UK having administered over 36 million doses in such a short time, it is patently obvious that this fastrack process will not have been able to carry out the legal procedures properly.

The fourth test is covid-19 hospitalisation and death rates. This is probably the only worthwhile test, as these are the figures which matter. However, if lockdowns have no effect on such rates, why are they such a crucial factor in speeding up the exit from lockdowns process? Why have we still not increased permanent bed stock ,trained staff and resources? These surely are the important factors in order to be prepared for when a more serious pandemic hits the UK.

It is important to look at some facts: 

The UK has had one of the worst set of lockdown restrictions in the world, but one of the worst covid-19 related death rates per million of 1861. The world average is 366.3 covid-19 related deaths per million.

Sweden, which did not have lockdowns, with 1330 covid-19 related deaths per million, has over 500 per million less covid-19 deaths than the UK. That cannot be ignored.

Even with the UK’s death rate, it is important to have sense of proportion. At 1861 per million it is 0.186% of the population, not the sort of figures which would justify taking a gamble with locking down the nation.

And there has never been a risk to over 99% of the population, so it seems an extreme lockdown decision was made, like a sledgehammer to crush a walnut, for the sake of minute risks, and for a virus where the average death age is over 82.

Mention was made of South Korea and Taiwan earlier, who both have never had lockdowns.

They have concentrated solely on medical measures, which is what the UK should have done. Their death rates for covid-19 have been the very low ones of 34 and 0.4 respectively.

Many other non-  lockdown countries have performed much better than lockdown countries in every continent in the world. They include Nicaragua ( 27 per million) , Tanzania ( 0.3 per million) and Belarus ( 241 per million).

They are living evidence that if anything, lockdowns make matters worse.

Even in China, they only shut down a few million of their massive population and carried on working, taking full advantage of the lockdowns in Europe and elsewhere. China’s covid-19 death rate is a very low 3 per million!

The logical way out of lockdowns is to have a sense of proportion. 

There are many sensible medical measures/precautions which  should be continued with, but they should be left to individual choice rather than government dictate. This has been very much the example set by the non- lockdown countries. This virus, like the flu one, has its ebbs and flows. It clearly has peaked and did so many weeks ago, but the lockdown proponents will try to maintain it was the lockdowns and the vaccination programmes which brought about this dip.

The example of the non- lockdown countries shows this analogy to be false, as the virus has dipped in their countries as well, without such extreme actions.

Is the policy of travel restrictions a big mistake?

The question then needs to be asked what about travel restrictions, quarantining, etc. ?

There is an argument but those countries which took such action early managed to contain the spread of the virus, but that has yet to proven. Even if was true, would such draconian actions be justified by the level of threat to the population as a whole ? Clearly not. In any event, the UK was very slow to take action on travelling restrictions, and if there was any merit in this view, the opportunity for that was missed a year ago. No point, as the saying goes, “in closing the door after the horse has bolted.” The added problem with travel restrictions is that there always have to be so many exemptions, and that means the door is not closed but half open. It could well be that the virus with its many variants does not need human carriers to travel and can simply travel by other means, as indeed do other viruses. If so benefit of travel restrictions, if any, would be dubious.

What about face masks?

These, like all restrictions, should be made voluntary. However there does need to be an up to date analysis on  all types of face masks, how effective or indeed dangerous they might be, and are there any circumstances that there is medical evidence that there is any benefit in wearing them in public?

Is the mass covid-19 vaccination policy pointless?

The other interesting point is that the UK and some other western nations are almost competing to have as many people covid-19 vaccinated as possible. In other countries, especially in Africa and Asia, they are barely doing any at all, and some none. They don’t see the covid-19 vaccines as the answer to a problem they do not have.

In other countries such as Russia, the President is emphasising it is a personal choice, something barely said in the UK.

What other actions should be taken ?

Best defence against viruses is a strong immune system 

Many of these countries see the value of having strong immune systems, so the Indians are very much into homeopathic medicines, whereas the Chinese are very much into their traditional remedies.

Crucial to all of this is the need for strong immune systems, which is a major problem in the UK.

There is a need to emphasise healthy eating and drinking, with the promotion of natural and organic products, as well as use of vitamins, minerals and nutrients.

The government still have not learned the importance of this, and of all the billions they have expended on the covid-19 crisis, there has been virtually nothing put into improving this important area.

Also little or no efforts  have been made to improve the problems of obesity, diabetes and other health conditions, where they have been very vulnerable to covid-19.

Invest wisely in the NHS, not erratically

Finally, the money spent  on covid-19 is close to the cost of the annual NHS budget twice over! There has been very little spent on extra critical care beds and, importantly, increasing the bed numbers in hospitals, ( of which there is a huge shortage).

Not only must we ensure we never lockdown again, but we must ensure we have a well- equipped  and staffed NHS, able to deal with whenever the next pandemic comes along. Next time it could be much more serious.