November 25, 2021 - 9:51am
The Government is getting a bad press at the moment (including from me). But, for the sake of balance, it’s worth pointing out some of the things they’ve got right.
On the Covid crisis, many of the biggest moves made by ministers are looking better all the time. Let’s start with the most recent of these crucial judgement calls — the ending of lockdown at the beginning of summer.
This was heavily criticised at the time. It’s a near certainty that, to date, we’ve had more Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths than we would have done had we not opened up. However, the contrast between the current UK situation and the surge now taking place elsewhere in Europe suggests that it was never a matter of whether the population became exposed, but when and how.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1463450302212886530?s=20
By choosing the summer over the winter and protecting the most vulnerable with booster shots, the UK may be achieving the least worst scenario for the Covid end-game.
The same applies to the economic side of the crisis. Julian Jessop has tweeted out the latest version of a chart that compares employment and GDP levels both during and before the pandemic:
FYI, here's an update of one of my favourite charts, illustrating the importance of #furlough in protecting #jobs in the early stages of the pandemic, but also why it's no longer necessary… pic.twitter.com/SgNTz9QYZL
— Julian Jessop (@julianHjessop) November 16, 2021
As you can see, both are close to complete recovery — in part, due to the summer re-opening. But what really stands out is that while GDP plummeted during the worst months of the crisis, there was no more than a small dent in employment levels. The fact that we avoided both the short-term trauma and the long-term scarring effects of mass joblessness is thanks to Rishi Sunak’s furlough scheme.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The initial reaction from our EU neighbours may have been ugly, but once they got over themselves the British vaccine experience provided a model that other countries have been able to assess and adapt to their own needs.”
The reaction from your EU neighbours to anything that GB does differently will be ugly for a long time to come. Even if they start to privately think that you’re onto something, it will never be said out loud. Or if it is, then very quietly, before drawing a disproportionate amount of attention to something that went wrong. You’ll never please them, so stop giving a damn and just get on with it.
The argument in this article is that wile Boris did shoot Britain in the foot he at least did not shoot it in the hip.
That is insane. The damage this fool did is greater than any other in history. If he had just gone with his original plan, Sweden like, South Dakota like, everything would be 1000% better. If he had just left the gun in the holster and did nothing he would have done the right thing.
Ah the usual hyperbole that just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. 1000% eh? Not 999%?
OK, +- 999%
Somehow you fail to mention Sweden, which happens to be part of the EU. But don’t worry, you are not the only one that ‘forgets’ mentioning Sweden these days.
Quite
Yes 2 1/2 good decisions. 1/2 because the economic programme was inflationary, as we’re seeing now, and because it did nothing for those who were between jobs when the crisis began; many benefited a great deal, even being better off, while some went without.
But there were a number of very bad decisions. While the first month of lockdown last year was understandable, by the second and since it has been pretty clear that the milder Swedish approach was better. In particular the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns were unnecessary.
Most seriously, far too little was done to protect people in care homes, while at the same time being far too cruel about their contact with loved ones. Care workers were going from home to home spreading infection and untested new residents were admitted, when children weren’t allowed to visit.
Moreover, the late and economically damaging closure of borders simply shut the gates after the animals had bolted, and, even worse, the introduction of Soviet style exit visas last March was tyrannical, something no free country should ever do.
The overall record is very poor, and though the opposition’s ideas were even worse, it’s a black mark on Conservative government.
You complain that more could have been done to protect people in care homes, then within the same sentence complain that we didn’t allow them to have more visitors, which would have increased the risk to the residents. I think that shows the complexities the government faced, nothing they ever did was going to please everybody, however once all is said and done I fully expect the death and economic toll of the UK to be largely in line with its neighbours, so I’d describe the response as adequate, albeit a bit too cautious with prolonged lockdowns for my liking
Read what I wrote, i explained “Care workers were going from home to home spreading infection and untested new residents were admitted, when children weren’t allowed to visit.”
The good news is that wile destroying a vast number of small business he did manage to double the wealth of the Billioneers, so it all balanced out, at least in the government’s eyes. Mission accomplished, as they would say.
Things are getting really bad in Germany at the moment re Covid cases/ hospitalisations/ intensive care numbers/ deaths. This has hit their Christmas Markets season (they’ve already been cancelled in Bavaria and Saxony (incl the Munich & Dresden famous markets)). I think there’ll be a lot of UK envy over Christmas in Germany if we can be having a fairly normal festive season. They, at least might then start to look at what they can learn from UK- if things are still going relatively well for us.
The Kate Bingham-led vaccine taskforce was the big success for Boris I think. Much superior to leaving vaccine policy to EU bureaucrats.
There’s a jolly nice Weihnachtsmarkt in Birmingham at the moment, if Germans are missing theirs too much!
What has saved the UK, isn’t its policy or the ‘vaccines’. It’s because the virus has had enough time and opportunity to roam freely and infect a substantial portion of the population. Remember, the UK didn’t have just one large wave, but two. And numbers were comparatively high during all of summer, compared to Europe.
It’s the countries that were most ‘successful’ in repressing the virus, and then opened up completely towards the end of summer (thinking that the ‘vaccines’ would be enough to get through the winter) that are in trouble now. The combination of a large pool of hosts and the false sense of security that politicians had instilled in the population to motivate people to get jabbed, is the main cause of the rise in positive PCR tests (because the ‘vaccines’ are only effective a few months, and so the jabbed also get infected and spread the disease). This is the main reason for desperate 2G measures and lockdowns in continental Europe.
Everyone is going to get it, and the sooner they do, the higher the chances will be that the mass psychosis fades away. Zero covid icons like Australia and New Zealand are in trouble.
Absolutely, exhibit A of this is Ireland. Stay locked down all Summer-for a 2nd consecutive Summer in fact- and then open up in late Autumn, the plan was “open slowly so we stay open.”
Unbelievably stupid
New Zealand will have to accept the existence of COVID or remain a closed society for many years to come. The vaccines are there to protect those at risk and let society acquire herd immunity through natural infection.
The lessons for Macron, Merkel and other European leaders are:
Conclusion: this represents the difference between decisive leadership and political posturing on the continent. They only have themselves to blame.
The benefits of the early end of lockdown I would count as controversial – like so many decisions on COVID. But OK, it could be – I shall keep an eye out for confirmation. The other two points are beyond doubt.
It is still very hard to give any credit to a government that – considering the number of U-turns and broken promises -clearly does not know that it is doing from one day to the next.
Well yes, the optimum strategy would have been to not lock down in the first place and expedited the pandemic in a way that shielded the vulnerable and increased the fitness/reduced the anxiety of the population you wanted to remain healthy enough to be exposed for herd immunity (as per the way civilised people deal with pandemics).
However, having succumbed to hysteria and an olde worlde panic; the question is are we exiting it well?
If we hold our nerve and don’t lockdown again, we might come out of this with some humanity in tact.
Those of us who have not died from COVID in the meantime.
People die from Covid (probably less so if they were fit, healthy and not enfeebled through lockdown).
People are killed by lockdowns. There’s a big difference.
It’s exactly that fear that drives politicians to do stupid stuff. Look at the IFR for those under 50 and who among those under 50 who die – if you aren’t obese nor diabetic your risk is near zero for death. Protect those who need to be out of the public – Great Barrington. Once the waves subside those at risk become much less at risk.
The rationale for opening in the summer was that at that point most of the vulnerable (wrinklies and crinklies) had just completed their 2nd vaxx and had antibodies in abundance.
The younger cohorts could mix with relative impunity (less likely to get seriously ill anyway) and by doing so would raise the general level of population immunity through mainly asymptomatic / mildly symptomatic infection.
End result – more of the general population with enough immunity to reduce hospital admissions at the end of summer / begining of autumn.
Now vaxx immunity is waning in the elderly the rationale is to increase their antibody levels with 3rd jabs to tee them up for the “social mixing with alcohol in unventilated spaces” season. One hopes the majority of this cohort have also had their flu shots.
Come January – March (tail end of the flu season) younger unvaxxed persons relying on antibodies acquired this summer will probably get infected and start transmitting again as will those who have just had 2 jabs in the summer and early autimn – and so it goes on.
OK, that does make sense – though I find it hard to even imagine that the Boris could have followed this kind of reasoning – or had the patience or interest to listen to those who did.
I still wonder why we do not just vaxx the younger unvaxxed persons instead of carefully organising for them to get ill at the best possible moment.
https://covidcalltohumanity.org/vaccines/
I think (but have no evidence to back this up) that younger cohorts have been slower at getting vaxxed – “Why should I ? I am not at risk of getting seriously ill”
The people at most risk now are the older cohorts and other immunocompromised doubly vaxxed who haven’t had their immune systems kicked up the backside by a third dose of a different vaccine. Limited resources (people) are rightly being focused primarily at this group right now.
As for Boris and his attention span – sadly I believe that you are probably correct. I think he is a natural freebooter – any restriction is anathema to him.
Just looked in the mirror and I can’t decide whether I’m a wrinkly or a crinkly. Is there a test on the NHS for this?
Yes, it was said at the time that people should mix in the summer after the two jabs, when resistance was at a high. And, magically, the booster came just in time for the bad season for us c/w people. The problem with COVID is that there are too many opinions.
Yesterday, Sanford said he was in a quandary because he was anti-vax (government control) but he wanted to come back to the UK to see his folks. This is a really interesting scenario and it would test the resolve of many on UnHerd.
I’m generally not a fan of lockdowns except in extreme circumstances, or vaccine mandates which I think are rather too authoritarian, however I believe a country is well within its rights to refuse entry to foreigners who are unvaccinated. The only reason for this is that the unvaccinated are statistically more likely to require expensive hospital treatment, and countries have no duty of care to citizens of other nations.
As 10’s of thousands arrive on the US southern border, unvaccinated. Depends on policy.
Well, for the unvaxxed by choice, they pays their money and they take their chances. There is quite high transmssion in the UK right now – mainly in younger age groups so if Sanford steers clear of people under 30 who knows maybe he will get lucky ?
Happily in the UK most vulnerable bods who wish to, will have had 3 shots by the end of December (?) and will not be affected by any virion shedding visitor.
“Let’s start with the most recent of these crucial judgement calls — the ending of lockdown at the beginning of summer. ”
That’s like saying “let’s admire the good deed of a rapist stopping the rape”.
The rest of the article continues at the same level of stupid.
What an utterly stupid analogy.
Two phrases spring to my mind here: ‘It’s still too early to tell’ whether we are actually doing any better than other country, as we can compare snapshot latitudinal data, but we do not yet have the longitudinal data that will really show how many people sickened and died,
And ‘More by luck than judgement’ applies to the current UK government. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day
It takes quite a lot of judgement to be this lucky.
There is a noticeable herd like reaction (minus/red thumbs) to anything even vaguely anti British in here. Discuss.
Looking at that twitter link in more detail, you find:
The UK has had more cases, and hence has more immunity, but that came at the cost of thousands of additional deaths. The better course of the pandemic now is a combination of post-infection immunity and booster shots. It is an open question whether Western European countries will have done better, worse or the same by spring.
Two obvious questions: Is COVID not equally dangerous for you whether you get it in the summer or in the winter? Might the UK not have done better to keep locking down and/or wearing masks, postponing the COVID cases, and concentrating on vaccinations and boosters in the meantime?
Respiratory infections are worse in people whose vitamin D levels are low. Therefore it is likely — but we don’t, grrr, have people collecting the data to confirm or disprove this — that catching covid in the summer is less dangerous than in the winter, when considering people in the aggregate.
However, up against this is the problem that covid is a seasonal disease. So, like other seasonal diseases, no matter how hard you might want to catch it in the summer, you may find it difficult to do so.
Theoretically it should be just as easy to catch a big dose of virus in the summer as in the winter – just choose to meet all your transmitting pals for long periods in a poorly ventilated closed environment rather than on a beach.
There are people who organised covid-catching parties to do this, and still failed at it. Also, there are studies (for other respiratory infections) from prison populations, where they are all stuck in poorly ventilated closed environments all year round. They’re seeing the seasonal variation as well. So something beyond ‘more people are meeting indoors’ is going on here, but as far as I know, nobody knows what it is.
interested thread on twitter speculating absolute humidity is an important factor
https://twitter.com/kparve/status/1462398425924780040?s=20
no doubt outside temperature which is closely linked with abs. humidity is correlated to CV rates
https://purescience.substack.com/p/whats-the-covid-19-forecast
Thank you for the link, Michael. The humidity hypothesis is really interesting.
Another theory which might explain several features of the current situation was proposed by Robert Edgar Hope-Simpson to explain features of flu seasons.
He theorized that people were exposed to flu (and by extension, other viruses) some time before outbreaks. This might explain why exposure to covid doesn’t seem to affect some people.
I’ve looked at these two links and the suggestion is that COVID cases are higher when the absolute humidity drops. So the question is asked,
“Why do COVID rates increase suddenly in Europe in October?” Ah, the absolute humidity drops in October after the summer.
Then, why is high-Covid moving north in the USA as we move to the cold winters? Yes, because the absolute humidity drops in the northern states.
Meanwhile, in Florida Covid cases are reducing now because the absolute humidity is dropping??
How about an alternative explanation. In Europe people spend a lot of time outdoors in summer and move back indoors in October. The same is true for the northern states of the USA. In Florida in the summer they live in air-conditioning and then it is cool enough to go outside in October. Hiding somewhere in there I see a few grams of vitamin D as well.
Doesn’t explain the prison population findings.
Small batch. Anything can cause fluctuations with a small sample.
every year, year after year?
Like geese, the viruses feel the pull of the seasons and the call to migrate…..
You getting the illness is merely their migration method as they move from one host to the next…..
And here is a paper I just found about infectious diseases in 2 regions of India.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/10/14-0431_article
OK, read that. It contrasts influenza cases in north India (Srinagar) and middle India (New Delhi). Influenza peaks in Srinagar at low levels of humidity and in Delhi at high levels of humidity. The authors conclude that influenza jabs should be timed to meet these peaks.
It concludes that temperature, humidity and latitude are important and draws a parallel with Brazil. In fact it seems to suggest that latitude is the most important factor and this isn’t really a factor. It doesn’t measure height above sea level, which could also be important. To repeat, the point of this paper was to say when to time the jabs, not to make a case for a particular factor of climate to be important.
No. Summer illness is better because there are fewer patients in hospitals for other reasons. In particular, our “wonderful” NHS has difficulties every winter from flu outbreaks. Also the point about booster shots is that the vaccines wear off, so boosters were less needed in the summer close to the first two vaccinations.
OK