Main Edition
US
FR
January 31, 2024 - 5:40pm
Nicola Sturgeon’s testimony today at the UK Covid inquiry wrapped up three weeks of public hearings in Scotland focused on decision-making and political governance. The former first minister has seen declining popularity in recent months, but it is her Covid legacy that should also come crashing down to earth. Despite consistently claiming that she “made many mistakes” during the pandemic, Sturgeon’s testimony ultimately served to uphold the unquestionable dogmatism of lockdown, and, with it, the illusions of maximum suppression.
Affirming her belief in the (political) power of lockdown, the ex-leader of the Scottish National Party said:
Alluding to Holyrood’s maximum suppression strategy, inspired by the Zero Covid philosophy, Sturgeon reiterated the Scottish government’s official approach in saying that “there is no such thing as a level of acceptable loss.” Yet Prof. Mark Woolhouse, a leading infectious disease epidemiologist from the University of Edinburgh and an adviser to the UK and Scottish governments, previously told the inquiry that this approach was fundamentally wrong. He argued that there was too much focus on reducing human contact, that bans on outdoor gatherings were unscientific, the lifting of restrictions was slow, disease models were given too much weight in decision-making, and no assessment of the harms of lockdown was ever conducted.
These points were not addressed during Sturgeon’s appearance. In fact, some of the most crucial questions were not even asked. Why did the Government follow policies with such weak evidence? How did it fail to balance infection control with social harms?
Just this week, new studies were published on the harms of Covid policies. A post-pandemic surge in mental health conditions, such as ADHD, means that an estimated one in nine UK children now have a disorder. A second study has estimated that 56,000 more children in the UK are obese due to our collective Covid response panic and could face “lifelong health consequences”. Excess deaths, most likely due to pandemic-related disruptions to medical services and lifestyle changes, also remain elevated in Scotland.
Instead, Sturgeon faced hours of questions about relatively trivial details. This allowed the media to focus on her deleting extensive WhatsApp messaging (despite previous claims that she would keep all communications), use of burner phones (which she denied), and her propensity for tears.
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‘Excess deaths, most likely due to pandemic-related disruptions to medical services and lifestyle changes’.
Well, at least one Covid myth is alive and well. Luckily, no one has any desire to investigate the really big elephant in the room.
What is that “big elephant”, and what are your views on it?
Student attainment in maths, reading and science as measured by the 2022 PISA report fell in all four parts of the UK: Wales saw the sharpest drop, the decline in England was least severe, while Scotland and Northern Ireland were in between. Lockdown was catastrophic for education and student welfare everywhere, but worst in places like Scotland and Wales where lockdown fanaticism at devolved government level was most intense. And after surveying such damage, Nicola Sturgeon biggest regret is that she didn’t lock down sooner. Well you get what you vote for.
Hardly ‘catastrophic’. At least granny was saved however.
Here we go again. Another BS article full of spurious claims, spurious experts and spurious scientific papers which belongs in the same sphere as QAnon. Is the author actually Andrew Bridgen in disguise?
Here we go again. Another BS comment from a person who simply won’t believe obvious facts.
Don’t bother replying directly. He is, I suspect, not terribly bright as is evidenced by a) inabilty to construct an argument and b) inability to spell at times
Heh heh, if you’re going to be a spelling and grammar fascist always make sure your own posts are correct ;o)
Learned how to spell biased yet?
… and spurious comments
My 12 year old son gained 30lbs during lockdowns. He’s always been a big eater but the lack of sports clubs and his being close to the fridge at home alone all day when school was closed really didn’t help. Thankfully we turned it around and he is finally at a healthy weight after 1.5 years of sports and monitoring his food.
How absolutely PATHETIC who does SHE think she is kidding?*
(*The completely fabricated BLUBBING!)
A woman’s prerogative.
If in trouble turn on the waterworks
Has ‘she’ no shame?
“there is no such thing as a level of acceptable loss.”
This is a huge lie.
For obvious reasons we avoid the terminology, but the fact remains that in public policy there is almost always a level of “acceptable loss” simply because there is almost always a trade-off somewhere.
We could prevent almost every road traffic death or serious injury simply by banning cars. We don’t because the costs of doing so to the economy, personal freedom etc would be huge and in turn have severe consequences for peoples health and wellbeing.
So we mitigate the risks with rules and appeals to people’s good sense but ultimately accept that a certain level of loss must be balanced against the benefits.
In my view the biggest failing in Covid policy was that no-one in a position of influence appeared to have the courage to ask, “Yes, but what are the costs of lockdown? Might they in fact be worse in the long run?”
Even if lockdown was ultimately the best – or least worst – policy, without properly considering that question decision-makers were failing in their public duty.
if the Government’s prime directive is to save lives, then every government in history has failed dismally. I am not a betting man, but I’ll happily wager that Britain’s governments have not been able to preserve a single life among the millions of subjects alive at the time of the Act of Union.
There are no perfect solutions, just trade offs:
Absolutely. The “zero risk” policy fallacy has caused untold damage in the UK.
Ever wondered why everything has become so expensive, slow and difficult ? Look no further.
We’ve traded common sense for moral cowardice.
And, as we all know, the collateral damage from letting the NHS focus only on Covid has been massive.
This is bog standard common sense and it horrifies me that we are still skirting around such basic considerations in our discussions of covid.
Sturgeon was being “advised” by the execrable Devi Sridhar. They HAVE to double down on their dogmatism, it’s all they have left.
Where on earth did they find her?
Presumably being Scotland she “was cheap at the price”regardless of any proficiency?
.
Despite Sridhar being a Professor of “Global Public Health”, she is an anthropologist, not a clinician. But Sturgeon ignored clinicians and listened to Sridhar’s “Zero COVID” nonsense because Sridhar ticked all the boxes.
What boxes exactly? I am a bit
“behind the curve “on such matters .
The boxes: (a) not English, (b) not Male (c) Exotic (d) promoting a policy (“Zero COVID”) that was much more extreme than Boris’ policy (e) A Wikipedia page that makes her look like a character from a Val McDermid novel. [That’s enough boxes. Ed.]
Thank you.
This is why the inquiry is useless; “In fact, some of the most crucial questions were not even asked.”
I don’t know. I’m no fan of the inquiry. But, if nothing else, it’s exposed the utter hypocrisy of Sturgeon and her media camp followers. How they all screamed about Boris Johnson’s behaviour and WhatsApp messages going missing. Then we find out that Sturgeon’s just like Johnson, only with a camper van.
Was it really only two years ago we were being lectured about how Brexit had made Scottish independence “inevitable” and how wonderful Sturgeon was ?
I am beginning to feel sorry for Scottish Nationalism, it deserves far better than the Scottish Nationalist Party.
This all translates into more Labour MPs in Westminster within a year.
This is fair
From the moment she first appeared on the political stage I thought Sturgeon was an awful creature. Her performances since leaving office, including this appearance with crocodile tears, have solidified that view!