Peter Sarf
Established Member
I think that delay of just a few weeks from February 2020 led to a very high level of infection amongst the population. It is created by a doubling rate which left unchecked gets very large all of a sudden.I'm open to correction but the impression I've gotten so far is that the people who are, in the inquiry, saying that we should have locked down sooner (most seem to have said a week or two, so not exactly dramatically earlier!) in spring 2020 are not the same people who are saying we should have locked down longer and harder (unclear how without going full Chinese Communist Party that could be achieved however). And I do broadly have some sympathy with that view.
The issue for me was never the first lockdown (other than some arguing about the precise timing of when to implement it) but a) the seemingly braindead approach of the Government to what was obviously going to be a crisis (Italy was all the evidence you needed that this was going to be bad) in the weeks leading up to it meaning once they couldn't ignore it, it was catastrophic and b) everything that happened afterwards especially the length of time that the first lockdown dragged on and the design of that lockdown.
I think the later part of b) is the key thing for me. If the first week or two, considering the Government had effectively panicked their way into a lockdown due to a), had been as harsh as we had that would have been one thing. But after that initial burst of panic they Government should have rapidly pivoted from "STAY AT HOME, LIVE IN TERROR" to a more sensible approach of encouraging people to still go out and get exercise outdoors (the weather was, after all, brilliant) and you can meet up with a few friends outdoors if you want. As well as dialling back on the "save the NHS" stuff which meant people with other acute illnesses avoided hospitals (oh it's just a bit of indigestion, not a heart attack) and died or left themselves with a worse quality of life (and the state picking up the bill for their care).
I think focusing on lockdowns and the length of lockdowns is a bit of a red herring. I know to some on here the very idea is anathema and to be opposed at all turns forevermore. But far more important to me is the decisions taken (or indeed not) before March which meant we got bounced into lockdown with no planning and then the decisions taken afterwards which lead to things like Derbyshire Police feeling that they could chase down people in the Derbyshire Dales with drones and being proud of it. When in reality we should have been encouraging people to do precisely that rather than stay at home whilst eating and drinking themselves to excess.
Think cases growing starting at one - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 onwards. The time between each doubling indicated how infectious the virus is. As time goes by the numbers go alarmingly from small numbers to large numbers but each doubling takes the same time.
I do think the messages coming from government were rather mixed up. We needed a consistent approach. We needed to not chop and change too much as it just left people incredulous. Eat out to help out was a confusion for many. But then I think we should have relaxed earlier in 2021 - but that might have been relying on assuming the vaccine worked and would have been chopping and changing.
Common sense says the government were primarily protecting the economy. The indication being the reluctance to lock down early enough. The death rate then loomed. The side effects of lockdowns were always going to be a late consideration but from the enquiry I see there were those trying to balance that.
It is incredible how much the UK government spent on Furlough and other support. I do wonder if it could have been worse.
One thing I see from the enquiry was how Boris Johnson was unable to understand the science. He does not have a scientific background and really could not grasp the statistical factors like the rate of doubling. Boris Johnson was not the right person at that time but then the UK is not generally run by people with practical experience.