Source
AutoModeratorMOD•

Politics threads can often get out of hand. Please observe the rules and play nicely or the post will be removed. Thank you.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
TheEasiestPeeler•

He conveniently misses out that there was a plan to cocoon over 70s for 12 weeks while this happened.

Comparisons to the black death are utterly ridiculous.

I really fail to see what is controversial about the comments from March anyway, they are scientifically correct. How were scientists meant to know multiple vaccines could be developed as quickly as they have been?

Also Vallance was right, the second peak has been greater than I and a lot of other people anticipated. Judging by Sweden I am not sure how much more immunity would have been gained in the spring if we took the kind of approach Vallance suggested but it is almost certain that R would have stayed below 1 in the summer at a low prevalence.

Also, Rosen was on a ventilator with covid and is a Corbyn supporter. Not really an objective opinion.

1
lotsofpointlesswarOP•

You have also conveniently forgotten these were not the only available options open and this kills and seriously damages young people as well.

To consider herd immunity was pure arrogance, given that immunity from other coronaviruses is between 6 months to 2 years. This was known then. Also going for herd immunity increased the likelihood of mutation, again something that was known. What was also known was that many would die, Boris actually said so himself.

There were studies that showed it had a low mutagenicity, however the majority of the scientific community strongly advised and co signed several letters stating that herd immunity was not a viable/advisable option.

The arrogance to not take the example of many Asian countries was infuriating at the time, but the unwillingness to accept how wrong these decisions were now is even more infuriating.

Maybe the UK should have aimed for no massive peaks at all, well done Vallance predicting what his bad decisions would do...

He's a Corbyn supporter, so not an objective opinion, huh?

1
TheEasiestPeeler•

This virus discriminates, let's not pretend that isn't the case.

You miss the point. Let's say there was no prospect of a vaccine until 2023, which could have been the case in March- what would you have suggested doing? Also it is only the miracle of the internet that has really meant a lot of these restrictions are seen as acceptable.

Comparisons to Asian countries are pointless for a ton of reasons. Do you really think countries like Cambodia and Thailand have done so well because of outstanding governments? Aside from the Scandinavian countries with small populations, where in Europe has really contained it? Even Germany is struggling now and is in lockdown.

No. Not when the piece has such a clear political agenda.

1
lotsofpointlesswarOP•

New Zealand, an island nation went for a zero covid approach with strong track and trace. Many people were calling for that at the time, so hindsight does not come into this. You are defending bad, ill thought out, arrogant choices.

Minimising it, while research was done to minimise the harm and work towards a vaccine was the most humane and pragmatic thing to do in term of ensuring societal stability, e.g. the economy. We are technologically and logistically advanced enough to have weathered this easily.

You mentioned political agenda, yes it does appear there was a political agenda at play here.

-1