October 21, 2021 - 9:52am
Sajid Javid’s decision to hold an impromptu press conference last night felt almost inevitable. The pro-lockdown machinery had slowly been shifting into gear, with familiar calls for mask-wearing, heightened restrictions and even lockdown. The NHS Confederation and now the BMA have both called for the immediate implementation of the government’s “Plan B”— a plan which consists of mandatory face masks, working from home and vaccine passports.
But Javid stood his ground: that in this moment in time, there would be no Plan B. Instead, liberties would be maintained and normal life would continue. This will have come both as a relief to some and a betrayal to others.
Yet it is perhaps worth noting that it is far from clear that the measures demanded would be a panacea. Scotland, which has embraced both vaccine passports and face masks, has recently seen cases exceed those in England. Indeed, at one point in September, Scotland held the unenviable position of having 10 out of 14 health boards in the top 20 worst affected regions in Europe, with Lanarkshire taking the top spot for highest rate of covid infections in all of Europe.
While it is true that the NHS is under pressure (in winter it always is), we should remember that the number of those in hospital with Covid remain steady. Currently, the figure is around 7000, which represents a small fraction of the over 100,000 beds available. As such, it is questionable that further restrictions would do much to relieve this crisis. Given that a long winter stretch lies ahead of us, it is also likely that any restrictions brought in now would last through to the spring, making this a long and extremely bleak lockdown.
The last time restrictions were imposed, it was January. 4392 patients a day were being hospitalised with Covid and less than 500,000 people had been vaccinated. On the back of an accelerating vaccine programme, restrictions were broadly accepted as a necessary evil to buy time, which was sold as a bridge to freedom. The end point was clear.
The situation is drastically different today. On average, less than 1000 people a day are being hospitalised with Covid, a figure which has remained relatively steady since “freedom day” on the 19th July. Nearly 90% of those aged 12 and above have received at least one dose of the vaccine and 45 million people have been double vaccinated. Any imposition of restrictions would be in spite of one of the most successful vaccine programmes in history. But perhaps more significantly, to reintroduce restrictions based on current figures would create a precedent, which risks haunting us for years to come.
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.
SubscribeWhen will the UK learn from the experience of Sweden, currently with a low and stable infection spreading rate, around 12 times lower than the UK, despite everything being opened up now? Lockdowns don’t have any positive effects, neither do face coverings except in extreme crowds, but sensible restrictions and other measures communicated in a clear and consistent manner do, coupled with an absence of fearmongering from the government, its advisors and MSM. If the message and strategy is made clear to the population and makes sense it might be possible for the population to adhere to the necessary restrictions, even in the UK, without going overboard on measures and finding the population no longer cares. Vaccine boosters are probably important in the short to medium term, despite my general aversion to them and their unknown long term effects. Vaccine passports are another different issue and are highly debateable. I’ve just come back from 10 days in Austria where FFP2 masks indoors and on public transport are mandatory with near 100% compliance but without the EU Vaccine certificate there would have been no restaurants, no cafes, no museums, no hotels, in other words no holiday. A step too far since the vaccine is ineffective in stopping the spreading.
The message and the strategy is made clear. It is ‘nobody needs to take any precautions or do anything cumbersome – vaccines will take care of it all‘. Meanwhile Morocco is closing travel because of the high level of COVID in the UK. Is this really where we want to be?
Be thankful that you have a health minister with a brain and the cojones to withstand the fear mongering of people who think that freedom is a given and can be taken back at any stage, people who think they are immune to death and people who think that the economy is something that is not affected by anything that they do.
I could mention the people who believe that their right to avoid inconvenience trumps other perople’s right to stay healthy and alive. Or we could both try to calm down a bit?
“Be thankful that you have a health minister with a brain”
Fogh lives in Sweden?
Fogh lives in the UK
THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT HEALTH. And the proof is that Natural Immunity is not recognised by any Western Government even though it is of greater effect in resisting covid than the vax – AND it would appear 1/4 to 1/3 of the Westerners Have Natural Immunity.
No, this plandemic is all about Social Engineering. That Sweden and South Dekota show lockdowns Increase covid cases and illnesses should convince anyone who is not a stupid sheep that the Governments are all up to something, are colluding in some plan against their citizens, some Global plan…. ‘The Great Reset’, ‘Build Back Better’, do you think those ominous words are good for you?
I don’t think the government are “up to anything” except giving in to press pressure in the past. I hope that that will not happen again.
Maybe you are right but do you not find it odd when the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc, are all using the phrase “Build Back Better”. Never in history, even in WW2, have all these nations been in such lockstep.
Living in NZ, I don’t believe I’ve heard the phrase build back better used at all
Sajid is a Thatcherite. He knows that the NHS needs reforming. He must know that the optimum solution is a state-subsidised private enterprise insurance scheme with multiple providers, capitalist and mutualist, competing to sign people up. You can still have universal health coverage with such a scheme. Other countries do it. I experienced one of them when I lived abroad. It was brilliant – the care was cutting edge because providers wanted to attract sign-ups.
You realise that was hearsay
Where abroad did you live? Most countries spend a significantly higher proportion of their GDP on their healthcare systems which I’d wager has more to do with the improved service than anything structural. This isn’t to say the NHS isn’t too heavy and in need of reform, but I don’t think ditching the entire system will lead to any improved outcomes without significantly increased funding
“Most countries spend a significantly higher proportion of their GDP on their healthcare systems”
Really? Most countries? I don’t want to sound like one of those terrible fact checkers but I think you’ll find that is very much not the case.
I’d wager the countries the poster is comparing the NHS to spend a higher proportion of GDP than the UK on healthcare yes. The UK is around 15th in the expenditure table, behind the States and most of Western Europe. so which countries spend less and have a better outcome?
Amen.
Let’s just hope it will hold fast.
Just yesterday I was reading an article according to which in England vast strata of society are looking at Italy’s vaccine passports with envy.
Remember Bill Gates ‘Quantum Dot Tattoo’ which the special vax needle left in the skin so a phone reader could read all your vax details (batch, date, location, say) Google it if you do not – he was a big proponent of this, till it became too 1984esk, so he dropped it – otherwise you would be carrying one now, like the ear tags sheep wear so they can be easily tracked and identified….
“But researchers from MIT might have a solution: they’ve created an ink that can be safely embedded in the skin alongside the vaccine itself, and it’s only visible using a special smartphone camera app and filter.”
The Italian super sheep likely look at that with envy….
Genuine question. The world dishes out billions of vaccines a year for various diseases. If the governments wanted to insert a chip in people’s arms via inoculations, why not use one of the hundreds of vaccine programmes already in use rather than creating a whole new one?
Secondly, most people (in the western world anyway) have passports and driving licences, jobs and national insurance numbers, mortgages and utility bills, health and dental records, and whatever other info is hidden on their smartphones and computers. All of this is available to governments if they choose, so what do they gain by micro chipping people? What more I fit will they gain?
What is plan B? Does anyone know. This is just the “nudge”dept softening us up for whatever comes next.
PLAN A
The plan to destroy the economy, education, health, jobs, business, society, has not fully worked yet… Therefore we have
PLAN B
Which we hope will finish the job, and that soon the sheep will be broke, frightened, easily manipulated, unused to freedom, and can be herded up, shorn, and sold for the meat. We at the World Economic Forum agree 100% with this action and are pushing for all the free world to do so as well. (Biden is already getting Plan C ready, just in case,)
This depends on the accuracy of the data. Now is not the time for the UK Government to reduce the availability of lateral flow tests for Covid. Six of my mother’s grandchildren live in the UK and have school age children. Five of those families have had a child test positive for Covid in recent weeks. No one has tested positive in the four families of her grandchildren that live abroad. The five families live in different parts of the UK country and did not catch it from each other. Is this a rare coincidence or is something afoot? Is there massive under testing or more failures in the testing? Does it matter? Not if those families do not get a serious illness – indeed it might build useful immunity – provided the vulnerable take care who they might meet. However one of the children was only tested because he was about to see his granny. Readily available tests are needed to protect the vulnerable.
But was the grandchild ill? The majority of the positive tests are either found in those who are immune or just feel lousy for a few days. That should not be a reason for introducing draconian measures. In fact, the media should stop giving positive Covid results and concentrate on those who are ill enough to go into hospital or who have sadly died..
It is ‘true’ that Covid has been limited by vaccines and shutting down would be harmful. It is also true that waiting times in A and E and other treatments seem to be at a serious threat level. Do nothing does seem high risk. A nuanced approach is probably worth doing but underlying this is the real problem- we have no solidarity to call on in a me first or me and my group first society so appeals to avoid crowds if unvaccinated would merely lead to some dumb crowded demo…my right to do as I please etc.
This discourse of ‘anti fear’ from anti measure types or ‘shutdown’ from the cautious is misplaced. Assume those against ‘fear’ aren’t anti vaxxers but appreciate the vaccine allows a semblance of normality? It’s about metrics. Balancing misery- those suffering non treatment because beds are taken up with unvaccinated patients vs wellbeing of children etc. The issue is whether I impose my choice on others. If I choose not to be vaccinated or wear a mask in enclosed crowded spaces and I’m asymptomatic this strikes me as immoral- you are imposing a choice on others. If I am vaccinated and mask wear in risky situations then I don’t impose on others. Rather I protect them but am certainly able to live a reasonably normal life. Perhaps there is no UK public duty or ‘wartime spirit’ left though and we’re heading for US individualism. Hands off my own healthcare and each man for himself even at the cost of much misery.
I am proudly immoral then. Masks are a psychological tool, not a medical one and whether I choose to avail myself of any medical intervention is between me and the NHS, will be a decision based purely on the benefits versus risks to me and is no one else’s business.
Ok. The benefits risks argument then becomes a transaction. That way lies the end of the NHS as being free at point of contact. Fair enough- charge those with lifestyle diseases for example as in insurance premiums. It’s only a transaction not a public good. ‘My’ healthcare is then no one else’s business for sure.
The only people I know who have had covid over the last six months are ALL double-vaxxed. Don’t belief this nonsense about the hospitals being full of vaxxed people as multiple FOI requests have proved that is not the case.
“If I choose not to be vaccinated or wear a mask in enclosed crowded spaces and I’m asymptomatic this strikes me as immoral- you are imposing a choice on others.”
Let me paraphrase your line
If I choose Freedom – (over a very extreme loss of freedom and abuse of all Human Rights) – rather than safety from a minor risk, that strikes me as immoral….
One must fight for freedom above all else. Freedom is all. It is immoral to tolerate government taking freedom.
A better way of looking at it is if people are scared of contacting COVID that they remain indoors and discuss best with their employers how to carry out their work duties from home. While they keep themselves safe, those who are unconcerned or at little risk can go about their daily business without hindrance from mandates and restrictions.
Right now, what we’re doing is the equivalent of allowing a sick child to come to school while telling all healthy children to stay at home.
Nobody is proposing a lockdown, now. Nobody is proposing closing schools, now. Nobody is proposing (horror) closing the pubs. People *are* proposing to encourage working from home, tell people to wear masks indoors, and remind us all we should try to distance and be careful. Just how terrible would that be? Instead the government is telling us all that nobody needs to do anything because everything will be just fine.
I do think that wearing masked on public transport is important, the trains/buses are full of strangers, some of whom may well be immune-compromised and I think it is incumbant on all of us to be mindful of our fellow citizens. It’s not a lot to ask someone to wear a mask, and, I know, people will say that they are not effective, but this is not the consensus among medical and scientific opinion, though. Don’t get me wrong, I know that we have to learn to live with the virus, but a short term measure of limited mask wearing and some social distancing in public areas will help some who are awaiting boosters
The immune system depends on regular exposure to pathogens to work effectively. Wearing masks reduces exposure and if you are happy to wander around in a bubble, go for it. I’m not.
The problem is I can’t walk in a bubble, can I, not if evryone else is not wearing a mask. A mask is less to protect the wearer than others around him.
Propaganda has got to you. You are only repeating what you are being touted.
In your opinion, can the masked be allowed to remove it while eating & drinking e.g in a restaurant? What happens when, in a public sphere- it slips or has large gaps ? What if you are claustrophobic or experiencing shortness of breath on public transport? So – is your bubble compromised if one person is not wearing a mask or many, or for some time or always?
Now imagine you were told – the virus gets through all fabrics and masks except gas masks. And imagine the whole world requiring to wear one. When does an image become ridiculous?
Now, while you are showing others how responsible they should be and wear masks, what have you been doing to improve your own health? Ones first responsibility lies with oneself. Are you doing everything in your power not to contract Covid? Others are NOT responsible for your health. Only you are. It’s your choice whether to go out in the dangerous unmasked world. If you do go out , you are taking that risk and it’s your responsibility, no one else’s.
Mask wearing is a trade-off, not a black-and-white question. If most people wear masks most of the time in crowded spaces, that gives you most of the benefit, and you can live with some exceptions and imperfections. As for ‘I am not responsible for other people’s health’ we do not apply that principle on second-hand smoke or speed limits. Do you believe in “I drive as fast as want, and it is your responsibility to say our of my way”?
Thank-you Rasmus. I am a little shocked that there are people who abnegate any responsibility for fellow citizens; I hope that this is not a wide spread view, if so don’t like what this says about our society and its hyper-individualism
I appreciated your contributions as well. It is more common BTL on this site than in many other places, but there are still a lot of good debates here. I’d say it is useful if there are a couple of polite people with different opinions on the site, just to remind everybody that different opinions exist.
Still waiting for your reply on the efficacy of regular masks in preventing an airborne virus. I guess it is because you haven’t got an argument?
I’ll do it for her: It is not that hard. Masks are helpful, but not perfect. There are largish droplets full of virus that fall down within a few metres and that are stopped or redirected by masks. Then there are tiny droplets that stay suspended for a long time, and that are not stopped by masks. Masking is one of the many things you can do to reduce viral spread – and it is one of the less costly ones.
Thanks for the reply, Rasmus.
I apologise Lesley, but I haven’t looked at this thread for a while so was unaware of your question. However, Rasmus has pretty much said what I would have, so I have nothing really to add except to emphasise that, while masks are far from perfect, every little helps for the person that you may encounter at the cost of a little inconvenience for most of us..
Still – what constitutes “most people”. If this is science there HAS to be a definitive number that is safe, beyond which it is not. Fact – we don’t know. No one knows. You are just swallowing what government has said but doesn’t know either.
Non sequitur argument about second hand smoke etc. If I have actively kept my health in good condition, I have, inadvertently, behaved responsibly towards others. You can’t change others, the only change you can advocate is to yourself. I can look in the mirror and be comfortable with my actions, I am not going to ascribe to an ideology or an opinion of certain groups who I do not respect . I think masks are useless. You think they are useful. I cannot unmask you, you should not try to mask me or anyone else. Double or triple mask yourself. On you go, it’s a free country….. so far.
No.
This is all a matter of probabilities, and science is perfectly able to deal with those. Sticking to speed limits, there is not a precise speed ‘that is safe, beyond which it is not’, either. But higher speed means higher risk of accidents and more damage for each.
Then what is that probability? Who decides the optimum ratio?
The answer to that is 1) You do not know very precisely but you can make some kind of estimate. 2) Someone has to be in charge and take decisions, That is what governments are for.
In an uncertain world insisting on 100% certainty before anything is done is just a trick used by people who prefer that nothing should be done.
Something IS being done. Most are wearing masks by choice. The few who find the idea beyond ludicrous and have exemptions should be making their choice not to wear one. Those who talk of responsibility should look in the mirror and exercise that themselves & attach 2-3 masks to their faces & let the rest be. As for the virus- this & last year experience shows that viruses cannot be contained with masks. It will mutate here or elsewhere.
The governments of Denmark, Norway, Sweden have accepted that these methods don’t work. Thankfully the government here is beginning to recognise that and hopefully will not bring in policies to pander to the ridiculous.
What about the unmasked bloke sitting right next to me on the airplane, shoulder touching mine, eating a sandwich and drinking a diet cola, while I am forced to wear a mask because I am not eating at the moment. Is there anything more ludicrous than that?
How do the masks that most people use prevent catching an airborne virus?
Agree that simple fabric masks are useless. Need to be medical grade. Like the vaccine which sadly isn’t a sterilising one it’s imperfect but reduces spread. As a virologist said today, of course it’ll improve but will be around as a public health danger for about 12-18 months longer if we insist on gathering in crowds with many still unmasked and unvaccinated. It’s not a case of shutting everything down.
Why should mask effectiveness be an opinion? They either are effective at preventing spread or they are not. It is not my opinion that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or that gravity is true or not. So far, most masks appear to be ineffective at preventing anything besides fear and submission.
All masks are ineffective. Before Covid there was a proposal to step using masks in the NHS because testing showed that they worked
The masks, like almost all the Lockdown insanity, is mere Talisman. It is the modern equivalent to toad foot bones in a skin bag worn to protect from the Evil Eye.