Not advocating borders closing in the finite sense, the UK is a huge global hub. But you can't clearly have open borders either, with not even the basic checks in place. The system Singapore, Thailand, South Korea, and most of asian countries have in place is very effective balanaced system in terms of economy and keeping the virus out - a far better balance than the extremely tough Australian stance (where there own citizens can't get back). Anyone who wants to enter has to go through an enforced quarantine programme for 15 days - to make sure they are free of the virus before they enter the country. The system we have in place at the moment is effectively voluntarily - with very few adhering.
fair enough. That's not closing the borders though, and the only thing missing from UK policy is the enforced hotel quarantine step of the process being stood up. i can see the appeal, but presumably there are finite resources/people able to work on this and the army for example were already occupied during the first wave.
Yes the NHS was decimated with funds, but once the virus start having tragic effects we did pump alot of money at the problem, largely most of it wasted. We threw huge volumes at the track and trace system. Instead of just copying what they have done in the experienced far east countries who have been through these pandemics before, we went down our own path. It doesn't do anything, not one thing. It's just a call centre.
You can't turn around 10 years of budget cuts with money and six months time though. That build up of expertise, experience and infrastructure takes time. Seems unfair to me that you blame the people who have hung around and done this for years despite the government and public not appreciating their efforts.
Few have been more critical of test and trace, but I don't think you can say on recent evidence it's just a call centre. Take a look at the proportion of successful follow ups in their weekly reports (you'll also see how incredibly effective overrun and dedicated the pre-existing Health Protection Teams are). If you take a look at the research on the new variants of concern you will also see how the contact tracing data has been useful for assessing risks of travellers from for example Denmark/South Africa/Brazil and determining policy.
Of course it's just my opinion, but they clearly advocated Herd immunity, and the scientists were quoting death rates of 20,000 as a 'good result'. These are clearly modelled on a flu type virus. I can't fathom how our scientists could make that mistake? Even if they can only suggest and politicians act, i can't ever see any of them getting up resigning as a matter of principle that what the government was doing was just wrong - we are essentially going to end up killing 100,000 people - when it needn't have been.
sorry but you've left the realms of truth here. Your opinion is wrong, and evidently you aren't aware of the modelling methodologies. They're publicly published and there's been plenty of scrutiny on them. The idea they're modelled on data not related to COVID is misinformation.
And ok, since you're blaming the scientists but not the government and saying they should resign - what then? let the government fill the position with a yes-man? do you think that would improve things? How can you criticise the suggestion that 20,000 deaths is the best case scenario for controlling the virus, when referring to 100,000 deaths? Surely on reflection you can see that it was a fair assessment even if you are uncomfortable with the unpleasant-truth semantics
Saying public health workers and scientists are "essentially going to end up killing 100,000 people" is incredibly offensive and disrespectful to all the thousands of people working so hard in these difficult times to protect you and your loved ones.
