He looked tetchy and sounded defensive on the idea of failing to properly isolate the elderley and vulnerable -talked about how they are the most socio economically deprived and too hard to protect -no one else has managed it. The truth is no one else tried.
Then there are those poor souls suffering other conditions which will not be treated on account of 90% of the NHS being closed down. Looking at the whole picture of the NHS one cannot argue it has been ‘protected’ -it simply isn’t functioning.
A policy of ‘driving corona cases to as low as possible’ is just not sustainable in the long term at least whilst the virus is still around and there is no vaccine.
Its seems what he is saying, for all his criticism of the Swedish model, is that it is the one we are going to inevitably end up adopting.
He is a classic scientist, blinkered by what he can see down the narrow lens of his own microscope. Scientific viewpoints can be extremely distorting of the broader reality and his ideas should only have a proportionate weight in the context of the pandemic. It’s also disingenuous of him to suggest that ‘we have not made politicians decisions for them’ when his research handed them a document that threatened a potential hundreds of thousands of deaths if they did not implement an immediate lockdown. Interesting how he now seems to be beginning to shift his narrative a bit as well.
Join the discussion