Somehow the now accepted truth is: "IC's '250-500K dead' report of 16th March made Boris, on 21st, announce lockdown."
But he KNEW on 2nd March (Witty: "500K"), 5th March (BJ: "take it on the chin"), 24th January (Lancet: "R0=2-3 / Mortality 1%")
What's true? @peterjukes
But he KNEW on 2nd March (Witty: "500K"), 5th March (BJ: "take it on the chin"), 24th January (Lancet: "R0=2-3 / Mortality 1%")
What's true? @peterjukes
I believe Johnson knew from late January that 500K would die - admitted as much on 3rd Feb in Greenwich - but prioritised keeping the economy open. And it was only after Macron told him on 21st March that France was about to shut down the UK anyway, dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8… ...
...that he actually relented. The same day. Not 16th.
Furthermore, I believe it was initially a sham lockdown - to pacify Macron and keep Calais open to Brits - as evidenced by failure to reinstate the community testing and tracing measures that had been dropped on 12th March.
Furthermore, I believe it was initially a sham lockdown - to pacify Macron and keep Calais open to Brits - as evidenced by failure to reinstate the community testing and tracing measures that had been dropped on 12th March.
My reasoning on this is: a genuine lock down would be aimed at reducing new infections to the few hundreds per week, so that testing and tracing have a chance of suppressing spread. But if the lock down is not accompanied by testing and tracing... what's the bleedin' point?
In summary:
1. Johnson knew since late Jan that stopping Coronavirus would necessitate a huge economic hit.
2. He chose to let 500K die, instead.
3. Hi U-turn was prompted by a new economic threat from Macron, not an 8-week old 500K deaths threat.
4. His U-turn was a sham.
1. Johnson knew since late Jan that stopping Coronavirus would necessitate a huge economic hit.
2. He chose to let 500K die, instead.
3. Hi U-turn was prompted by a new economic threat from Macron, not an 8-week old 500K deaths threat.
4. His U-turn was a sham.
